Atheist sues Defense Department for violating his civil rights
posted at 6:16 pm on April 26, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Yes, there are a few of us in foxholes. I’m sympathetic, just like I’m sympathetic to the 96% of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation’s soldier-clients who are Christian but evidently not Christian enough. The tricky part of these cases, of course, is balancing the rights of the soldier with the military’s need to restrict some of those rights to promote discipline and improve morale. Hard to see how threatening a kid for being godless does either:
When Specialist Jeremy Hall held a meeting last July for atheists and freethinkers at Camp Speicher in Iraq, he was excited, he said, to see an officer attending.
But minutes into the talk, the officer, Maj. Freddy J. Welborn, began to berate Specialist Hall and another soldier about atheism, Specialist Hall wrote in a sworn statement. “People like you are not holding up the Constitution and are going against what the founding fathers, who were Christians, wanted for America!” Major Welborn said, according to the statement.
Major Welborn told the soldiers he might bar them from re-enlistment and bring charges against them, according to the statement…
Major Welborn declined to comment beyond saying, “I’d love to tell my side of the story because it’s such a false story.”
But Timothy Feary, the other soldier at the meeting, said in an e-mail message: “Jeremy is telling the truth. I was there and witnessed everything.”…
In November 2007, Specialist Hall was sent home early from Iraq after being repeatedly threatened by other soldiers. “I caution you that although your ‘legal’ issues are yours and yours alone, I have heard many people disagree with you, and this may be a cause for some of the perceived threats,” wrote Sgt. Maj. Kevin Nolan in Specialist Hall’s counseling for his departure.
I’ve written posts about the MRFF before and the comments tend to split between “they’re exaggerating” and “yeah, it happens, but to an acceptably small degree.” To the extent that that’s originating from a slippery-slope concern about litigation making commanders worry overly about their rhetoric in war zones, fair enough — but we’re not talking about a live-fire situation here. On the other hand, it’s worth noting that one of our more knowledgeable readers thought the Foundation was wrong on the law when it complained about Pentagon brass violating DoD regs by appearing in a video for a Christian ministry. They’ve also got a nasty habit, all too common among my fellow atheists, alas, of letting their own rhetoric run away with them: Witness the press release comparing Hall’s treatment to “rape” or Mikey Weinstein’s infamous threat to leave “sucking chest wounds” on his opponents. Or better yet, just go watch the first 20 seconds of the group’s introductory video. That analogy is sufficiently disgusting that it should keep any conscientious atheist away.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5
The bible was not written to “prove” God existed. If Christ admitted that he could do all the things a God could do and people would still not believe. So why would a written word be of much use to a non-believer?
The bible is a “road map” for believers, it is a path to follow to help navigate through life.
And it is used for other to mis-interpret and spread a false message…I mean some religions say they believe in the bible, as long as the “interpret” it how they say it should be interpreted. Others use the Word to denounce God, picking out little phrases here and there to “prove” God wasn’t a biologist, or scientist.
And others read if for comfort and wisdom…
right2bright on April 28, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Okay, Esthier, I see your point, but Oldnuke brought the subject up in a very negative way. He said that fundamentalists were difficult to discuss things with even when presented with “facts”. That sounds to me like someone who thinks they are right and the person they are discussing things with are automatically wrong. In my family my mom is Baptist, my dad agnostic, my brother atheist, one sister is Mormon, and my other sister and I are Charismatic (low key Pentecostal). I obviously do not agree with most of the members of my family in the area of religion, but I would never get into a debate with them because I understand how strong their feelings are. I would be willing to discuss with them but I do not feel it is my place to try to change them. The impression I get from Mr. nuke is that he felt it was his place to change them. Maybe that wasn’t his intention but it comes across that way.
Rose on April 28, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Your conclusion could not be further from the truth. Matter of fact I can’t really see how you reached it. I had nothing but respect for my Grandparents. I don’t ever recall having an argument with either of them about anything. I just couldn’t understand the obvious (to me) inconsistencies in their beliefs and they were never able to satisfy my curiosity. There was frustration for them because I couldn’t understand and on my part for the same reason but no animosity. I certainly hold no contempt for their beliefs, or anyone else’s I simply don’t understand them. There are other conversations I’ve had over the years that did generate some animosity but never with my grandparents.
Oldnuke on April 28, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Oldnuke, But why do you speak of fundamentalists in such a negative way? I refer to your post at 11:06PM last night.
Rose on April 28, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Sorry I wasn’t trying to make a point, just a question. Didn’t phrase it very well.
Oldnuke on April 28, 2008 at 1:37 PM
What, pray tell, is a conscientious atheist?
Christianity isn’t some sort of book club or social group. Christians gather because God tells them to come together in worship. Why do atheists need to get together other than bash those who profess faith in a higher being?
I don’t begruge atheists their decision to burn in Hell but I suspect when one scratches away the veneer of a “conscientious atheist” you will find a Christian hater who will not differentiate between Evangelical Christians and the Fred Phelps of the world who bear false witness about Christ’s message.
highhopes on April 28, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Just reread the post and I’m not sure what you find negative. I don’t think I even disagreed with anything or anybody. What do you find offensive?
Oldnuke on April 28, 2008 at 1:44 PM
I don’t understand why people who believe that you are born, you live, you die and then you are “worm food” would want to bother fighting Christianity? It seems that these folks would want to be out living every minute of their existence doing fun constructive things instead of trying to destroy something.
Rose on April 28, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Oldnuke, These statements stand out but I find the whole post rather snarky. “I would guess that you haven’t had much exposure to that branch of Christianity…..Logical debate is very difficult with any fundamentalist…..Their beliefs run very deep and they will accept no dissenting views as valid no matter the facts that support them.” Maybe these people are as sure of the “facts” as you seem to be?
Rose on April 28, 2008 at 1:56 PM
I suppose I can see where you’re coming from, but I just didn’t see that in his post.
As to your family, that’s a lot of religious diversity. I guess it makes sense though considering each parent has a different belief on the question or whether or not God exists.
Esthier on April 28, 2008 at 1:58 PM
From past posts, atheists by and large, hold people of faith in disdain. They feel faithful people live in a land of fairy tales, we (Christians) are led by a Zombie and the bible is so full of errors that it can’t be true. Most see no redeeming value in following what they consider a “story”.
However, they enjoy the fruits of the faithful labor, relish in the country the faithful have built, take their kids to the hospitals that the faithful built, to the schools they built, and when tragedy hits, accept the the efforts of the faithful to help people re-build their homes, lives, and families.
They hold faithful people in disdain, but worship what we provide them…
right2bright on April 28, 2008 at 2:02 PM
You know what I think is interesting.
What does it matter who does what and worships? I couldn’t give two dunkin doughnuts and a hot coffee on what anyones “religon” is in this thread.
If you are in the military and serve, and they are protecting your freedom and your ability to speak, and worship anything you want, don’t you think they should be allowed the same while serving?
This is the reason why I hate talking religon. People go off the deep end.
So what if the guy doesn’t believe in God. Who are you to tell him otherwise? You are not God.
upinak on April 28, 2008 at 2:05 PM
I may have missed a post or two, but I don’t recall anyone arguing in favor of keeping a soldier from being an atheist or keeping an atheist from being a soldier.
Some have argued against the law suit and in favor of chain of command, but that’s a different topic altogether.
Esthier on April 28, 2008 at 2:08 PM
This:
Is a mirror image of:
That’s interesting.
fossten on April 28, 2008 at 2:10 PM
I have to disagree on the issue of translation. It’s far more “dangerous” for people with a smattering of Greek or Hebrew, a word study book, and a lexicon to go trying to figure out the “correct” translation. Sure, some translation is easy, and could be done by just about anyone with a casual knowledge of both languages. But some passages of scripture are very hard to translate correctly.
I would say that unless you are going to spend a great deal of time learning Greek or Hebrew until you know it nearly as well as your native tongue, you’re much better off using your King James Bible. Maybe even if you did become an expert, since people tend to have blind spots about their own translating abilities.
As for the specific example of yom versus day, it’s not even necessary to be aware of Hebrew to figure out that “day” does not necessarily mean a literal day. Just do a search through the Bible for “day of the Lord,” and read those passages. It takes very little reading to figure out that it doesn’t necessarily mean a literal day.
The Bible remains the best commentary on itself.
There are some things that don’t really translate well, but the translators of the King James were very transparent about their translation.
For example, when words are implied by the original but not part of a strictly literal translation, the translators put them in italics. Most modern translations just stick the words in there. I can’t say they’re wrong to do it, since it is part of the translation, but it’s noteworthy that the King James makes it so clear what was directly translated and what was applied.
Words for God are another example where the KJV translators make it clear what word is being used. Jehovah in the the Old Testament is consistently translated as LORD, all caps. Adonai, another word for God meaning “Lord” or “Master”, is translated as Lord, capitalized, but not all caps. Elohim or El is translated as God.
tom on April 28, 2008 at 2:15 PM
I had a Bible professor in college who was so fluent in Greek that he didn’t even bother with a translation. He had a Greek New Testament that he would translate for us as he read the scripture passages to us. We would follow along in our interlinears. He was an elderly man who had spent most of his life studying the Bible. I learned a lot from him, especially a love for scripture and how important it is to study it.
Rose on April 28, 2008 at 2:26 PM
I think you are mistaken about the word “yom”, the word yom is used 56 times in the old testament, and with three distinct different meanings (regarding time). At least one was not known as late as 1940, well after the KJV was written.
Read what I linked, and you will see the different meanings.
You will find many people and scholars of the KJV stating that a day is a day, 24 hours period. Other scholars say another time, which makes KJV wrong in this one aspect (there are others). If they wanted to say something else, then the interpreters would have stated such or put in “italics”, they did not. KJV thinks yom is 24 hours, and many (most now) scholars do not.
Funny how you rely on the KJV, but deny them on this one fact.
That is why it is best to not to interpret these things yourself, but to go to the experts. That is what the internet is so powerful, you can tap into scholars, and read their works…just follow the links I gave you.
right2bright on April 28, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Well I am sorry that you found those comments offensive. They are personal observations based on a lifetime of experience. The comment about Esthier not being familiar with fundamentalism turned out to be true. She was asking questions and trying to offer her point of view which apacalyps summarily dismissed. Not open to any dissenting view. Makes it difficult to have a discussion.
Oldnuke on April 28, 2008 at 2:56 PM
But what you are saying is that because apacalyps didn’t agree with her that he was being unreasonable.
A discussion does not mean that someone has to change their mind and agree with the other person. I didn’t read the whole conversation, but if he believed something why should be change his viewpoint? If he is firm in his beliefs than there is no reason to change them just because someone else has a different belief. Was Esthier willing to change her viewpoint because apacalyps had a different one? Or was she equally dogmatic?
Rose on April 28, 2008 at 3:04 PM
I’ve been trying to stay away from commenting on this thread since it came up, but obviously I’ve failed.
I’m a nontheist. Which, I suppose, is just a different way of saying ‘atheist,’ but atheist has such a negative connatation to it. It’s not that I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in the concept of a divine being that we must worship. I think that there is something that connects all of us together, that there is a force in life greater than me, and that although I’ll die, I’ll still continue to exist (my atoms will not vanish, but simply be recycled back into the cosmos). I guess the force I believe in could be god-ish, however, the last thing I’m ever going to do is to start worshipping anything. I still have morals, values, and respect for life (something not exclusive to religions of the West). I’m not here to debate religion, though, just to give background on myself before commenting on the case.
I was in the Navy for 4 and a half years. Yes, my dog tags say Roman Catholic, because when I joined that’s what I was. Life changed, as did my beliefs. One of my best friends in the service was devoutly religious, but we got along splendidly. I did catch a bit of guff, even from superiors, for being unreligious – but this was mostly because they did not believe one could be both conservative and not Christian. I had a couple of chiefs along the way that sound like this Major – a bit of a jerk when confronted with views contrary to their own. I don’t discount what the kid is saying, and if his reenlistment was blocked, then action needs to take place to correct this. I don’t agree with suing anybody though. There is a chain-of-command for a reason, and there are other avenues to take if one does not feel comfortable with that route.
I don’t understand two things here. One, why are people against a bunch of atheists holding a meeting, even if that meeting only exists to confirm that they still don’t believe in God? People hold Bible studies, even though they’ve studied the Bible before (my MIL has been doing this for decades). Maybe he didn’t want to feel alone – nothing wrong with that. Secondly, what is up with the thread being derailed to the topics of Biblical age, evolution, and my favorite, dinosaurs on the ark? Look, AP’s been an atheist for, what, ever? There are fellow nonbelievers here that have not-believed for probably longer than I’ve been alive. Lavishing insults and reminding us how you believe we’re going to your hell are not going to convince us to change our minds and believe in your God. On the same tokin, it goes both ways. I don’t think anybody on the this side does nontheists favors by telling believers that their holy book is a collection of fairy tales and that they’re wrong to believe the Earth is 6000 years old.
I don’t think (hope) I’m the only one that believes these topics could be debated a little more rationally. Then again, nothing like a good debate about the logistics of pumping dino poop out of the ark to draw in all sorts, eh?
the goddess anna on April 28, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Sez you. Millions of Scientistsdisagree.
ronsfi on April 28, 2008 at 3:20 PM
I wasn’t having an argument with him (or her). I was being asked questions and was then called stupid when he/she didn’t understand what I was saying.
There was no debate whatsoever. Feel free to check for yourself if you don’t believe me.
You certainly aren’t the only one, but some days I imagine that we’ll sooner see peace in the Middle East. If people on this site, who largely agree on most political issues, cannot be respectful to one another on an issue so personal as religious faith (or a lack of one), then I don’t hold out much hope for this discussion in general.
Esthier on April 28, 2008 at 3:21 PM
No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. What I’m saying is that it appeared to me that Esthier was attempting to understand apacalypse’s viewpoint and offer her own while apacalypse was arbitrarily rejecting everything she said. Not that he disagreed but totally rejected any viewpoint other than his own. There is a cornerstone of Fundamentalism called Biblical Separation are you familiar with that term?
Oldnuke on April 28, 2008 at 3:26 PM
I know, and I agree. For a person who has never been called optimistic in her life, I’m sure acting optimistic, aren’t I? : )
the goddess anna on April 28, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Would provisions and seaworthiness be a concern for a naval vessel? Wouldn’t assessing the feasibility of recounted naval exploits during the battle of Salamis be of interest in a discussion on battle tactics?
The more metaphorical one reads the Bible the less essential it is for the ark to be analyzed from an engineering standpoint. Many Christians abide primarily by Christ’s Sermon on the Mount and worry less about the technicalities of the Old Testament agriculture, lineage and animal husbandry. It seems to me that they may not have a bad idea.
dedalus on April 28, 2008 at 3:38 PM
I was joking about the dinosaurs because they were brought up in the Expelled thread… and they’re in this one too. It was the most light-hearted thing I could think of at the time.
the goddess anna on April 28, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Personally, I just don’t see the point of an affinity group for atheists. Christians come together to worship with other Christians. Book lovers get together to discuss what they’ve read. Even the octogenarians who like square dancing get together for that purpose. What do atheists discuss after confirming that they still are faithless? That is, if the group doesn’t want to get into bashing those of us who think you atheists are wrong. If that isn’t on the menu, then it isn’t an atheist meeting, it is a social group made up with atheists. That’s a far different thing.
I’ve been in the Navy for 23 years now. I’ve never come across an officer who would show up at a meeting of non-believers and berate them. The only re-enlistments denied (or discussed about being denied) were for performance-based not faith-based reasons. What I suspect really happened here is a poor performer went out of his way to provoke and made this into an issue where none existed.
highhopes on April 28, 2008 at 3:45 PM
And what is wrong with Biblical Separation? I do not agree with apacalypse’s tone but I agree with his right to his beliefs. I do not think he has to consider something to be true that he does not believe to be true. He is dogmatic in his beliefs and that is no different than anyone else on this thread. You have singled him out in a demeaning way. Maybe his tone caused a negative reaction but he is no more or less opinionated than anyone else who had been posting. Are you willing to consider his arguments on this debate? If not, why?
Rose on April 28, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Check the number of posts in this thread. Most of them are not even about the original post. It just spun off into a general discourse on religion. This always happens. Religion is a hot button issue. Everybody has their own idea about religion and I don’t think that there will ever be a resolution to those differences. I will tell you from experience that it is possible to have civil respectful discussions on religion.
Oldnuke on April 28, 2008 at 3:47 PM
I enjoyed your post, and agree with many of your point :-)
dedalus on April 28, 2008 at 3:50 PM
You never met my old CO then. I do know of people who where denied reenlistment for non-performance-based reasons. Heck, the old bat told my LT (who was in my military COC and my boss in our civilian/military mixed office) that she signed the paperwork kicking me out mid-pregnancy because there were too many Russian linguists, and because I was married to military I wouldn’t lose my benefits. I had 18 months left on my extension, and my med board said I was fit for continued service.
And so a meeting of atheists can’t have religious bashing on the menu? I suppose a Bible study can’t talk about how those that don’t believe are going to hell then, right?
the goddess anna on April 28, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Wouldn’t it be appropriate for them to discuss the weight of going into battle, risking death and being uncertain of an afterlife? It would seem one thing to face enemy fire with the confidence you will be reunited with your loved ones after death. To be under fire with the belief that death is the ultimate end would seem to be something worth discussing with fellow soldiers.
dedalus on April 28, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Once again you jump to a totally illogical assumption. I made no implication about Biblical Separation at all. I merely asked if you were familiar with it. I didn’t pick apacalyps out I just asked him a couple of questions. I didn’t demean him at all just offered a personal viewpoint to Esthier on fundamentalism in general. You choose to take offense when none is offered.
Oldnuke on April 28, 2008 at 3:59 PM
It’s a good thing to be optimistic about.
I do agree with that. My husband was an atheist for awhile, and talking about religion (”debating”) actually brought us closer together.
I didn’t mean to imply that I believe it’s completely impossible, just that it seems impossible, to me, in a large group setting.
The discussion isn’t whether or not his beliefs are correct. It’s the manner in which he discussed his beliefs, insulting me for not agreeing with him while assuming I believed things I don’t.
To be fair, those who don’t attend Phelps’ church usually bring up the fate of unbelievers as something to inspire Christians to reach out and help unbelievers, not to bash them.
If it is brought up for bashing purposes, then it’s not a biblical study.
Esthier on April 28, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Many years ago when I was in the canoe club the ship I was on went on a dog tag quest. Everyone had to have dog tags. One guy in my division listed religion as atheist. Caused quite a stir. He was informed that “He couldn’t be an atheist!” We all got a big kick out of that including him. He didn’t go all hyper though just listed his religion as Shinto and laughed. Gave us all a great excuse to bitch and moan about how stupid ring knockers were. Oh yeah after it was all said and done we threw the things into our lockers and left them. Couldn’t have metal things hanging on metal chanis around roatating high voltage equipment. Something about a safety hazard. Hope you’re not a ring knocker I might have offended you :-)
Oldnuke on April 28, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Esthier,I agreed that apacalyps’ tone was inappropriate, but oldnuke blamed his attitude on his fundamentalist beliefs. That is what I had issue with. He made a generalization about a group of people with strong beliefs. I just countered that everyone posting was equally dogmatic about what they believed.
Oldnuke, What was your purpose in bringing up Biblical Separation if you had no problem with it?
Rose on April 28, 2008 at 4:15 PM
To be honest, I don’t know what a ring knocker is.
Off-topic: I hear thunder, and I just started up the grill. Now I get a tornado watch message from the Weather Channel. Grrr! I’m not feeling good, and I just wanted some grilled chicken.
the goddess anna on April 28, 2008 at 4:30 PM
I can understand that now.
I just wanted to make it clear that I never tried to debate apacalyps.
Esthier on April 28, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Get a George Foreman grill. They have bigger ones, but they’re still electric and can be used inside.
Esthier on April 28, 2008 at 4:33 PM
His fundamental beliefs are exactly why he takes the position he does. I didn’t say there was anything wrong with it. Matter of fact I’d be highly suspect of anyone claiming to be a fundamentalist who didn’t have a position similar to that. As far as biblical separation that’s a cornerstone of fundamentalism. If you know what it is and understand it then surely you must agree that a belief that requires total rejection of ideas outside the faith would make it slightly difficult to hold a reasonable discussion with dissenting viewpoints.
Oldnuke on April 28, 2008 at 4:38 PM
OMG! The navy must have changed a lot since I was in. One of the first terms I learned as a boot. :-)
Ring knocker = Annapolis grad
Oldnuke on April 28, 2008 at 4:40 PM
So anyone with a strong opinion, such as our friendly atheists on this site, are fundamentalists in their thinking, just in the opposite way. Again, you are making it seem that he is the only one who is not willing to consider another viewpoint, when the atheists here are no different.
Rose on April 28, 2008 at 4:45 PM
I’d say 90% of the officers I came in contact with were former enlisted. I’d also say I was pretty segregated from the rest of the Navy, since I was stationed at an Army base (Ft. Meade), and I never stepped toe on a comissioned ship for any official purpose. But now I know – and knowing is half the battle.
Esthier – I wanted one of those, but the husband insists it’s not grilling unless it’s outside. He grills in the snow, mind you. It figures the one time in two years that I want to grill (and he’s not here), it would rain.
the goddess anna on April 28, 2008 at 4:49 PM
If a person wants to be an atheist, let them…I have never understood atheists anyway. They claim that God doesn’t exist, and then spend time bashing Him, or that Christ wasn’t real, and then call Him names. The only group I know that argues about something that doesn’t exist.
The punishment should be this, this guy is to be left alone (he is if you know what I mean), and allowed to have his own religion (atheism).
The Maj. jerk dressing him down, if the major was a Christian, he would know that he does not have control over this guys beliefs…and that God may have a plan for him.
right2bright on April 28, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Nope, wrong again. Matter of fact I agree with you on this one. A lot of atheists are actually fundamentalist in their thinking. Rejecting all notions of a deity with a total unwillingness to even consider another viewpoint. I’m as much at a loss as to how anyone could actually be a true atheist as I am about fundamentalism. I cannot fathom any method to either prove or disprove God’s existence. If you have faith then you believe, but believing doesn’t prove anything.
Oldnuke on April 28, 2008 at 5:05 PM
Biblical separation has nothing to do with separating yourselves from ideas, but from conduct. The most obvious example is for someone with a religious conviction against drinking to not hang around people who drink. Or to avoid spending time with people who just want to talk about sex.
Needless to say, that’s a very quick way to become unpopular, since even with the most innocent of intentions it comes across as self-righteous.
At any rate, I could see it coming into play if you were with a group of people who never did anything but talk about how stupid the idea of God is, but I don’t think it would apply to a genuine conversation.
tom on April 28, 2008 at 6:02 PM
Even in the snow? That’s a bit extreme for me. Then again, I live in Dallas where it usually only snows once a year.
I can’t disagree with that logic, but my husband’s a vegetarian. It works for us since we’re only grilling one meal.
Esthier on April 28, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Look what happens when you leave the kids alone, they soon start entertaining themselves. Oh, my…
apacalyps on April 28, 2008 at 6:06 PM
I should have re-phrased this. Light was not created, since God Himself dwells in light. God is light!
“This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” 1 John 1:5
“Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” John 8:12
…and also ‘God is a consuming fire’
“For our God is a consuming fire.” Hebrews 12:29
Creationists usually conclude that God provided the Day 1 light source. This is not surprising, as the Bible tells us that ‘God is light. Some other Biblical examples of light without the sun:
In the apostle John’s vision of the New Jerusalem, ‘the city had no need of the sun, nor of the moon, that they might shine in it, for the glory of God illuminated it, and its lamp is the Lamb
“And the twelve gates were twelve pearls: every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass… And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.” Revelation 21:21-23
This description of the heavenly city is repeated:
“And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.” Revelation 22:5
Hope that helps.
Light, life and the glory of God
apacalyps on April 28, 2008 at 6:25 PM
oh darn, gotta a phone call….
apacalyps on April 28, 2008 at 6:28 PM
It doesn’t snow much here in Va Beach, but it does up where he’s from. And now I can say I’be grilled in the rain (and one of my kids actually ate all of his chicken! Miracles can happen!)
the goddess anna on April 28, 2008 at 6:36 PM
This thread is changing you. You’re witnessing miracles! :)
Esthier on April 28, 2008 at 6:50 PM
tom, to be honest I had to look up Biblical Separation because I had never of it. I didn’t see anything bad about it. I have no desire to be like people who are not Christian just so I didn’t appear self righteous. You should not participate in behavior you consider inappropriate just so people will accept you. That’s why kids get in so much trouble, peer pressure.
Rose on April 28, 2008 at 7:13 PM
Esthier on April 28, 2008 at 6:50 PM
Heh. It won’t last though. I might start believing in God if all three of my children ate at least 75% of every meal I cooked for them for a week. The Goracle’s Second Coming will happen first.
the goddess anna on April 28, 2008 at 7:26 PM
Oh! Somebody smart enough to be Russian linguist shouldn’t rely on such sophistry to make a point!
Bible study focuses on what the Bible says about non-believers not what individual Christians think about atheists. The fate of non-believers is going to come up as it is part of God’s message and Christ’s words. I challenge you to show me how atheists can discuss the subject of religion without dismissing the faithful as misguided fools or (at best) taking a clinical approach that discusses why the faithful might believe in a higher being when that isn’t the case.
Sorry to hear about the circumstances surrounding your release from the Navy. Sounds like this must have been some time ago. Nowdays lots of single moms and dads are running around (a wrong policy IMO) and lots of sailors who get “baby leave” and simply aren’t working for the Navy for a few months before coming back on duty.
highhopes on April 28, 2008 at 8:14 PM
Simply unbelievable. The evilutionists groupies will do anything to avoid the fact that preserved soft tissue, including possible blood vessels and red blood cells, are turning up in Dinosaur fossils. The denial by the evolution community is a post hoc story to avoid the clear implications of the results. The researchers do state in the research paper that they believe the T. rex tissue contains blood vessels and cells.
Schweitzer confronted her boss, famous paleontologist ‘Dinosaur’ Jack Horner, with her doubts about how these could really be blood cells. Horner suggested she try to prove they were not red blood cells, and she says, ‘So far, we haven’t been able to.’ (Schweitzer, M. and Staedter, I., The real Jurassic Park, Earth, pp. 55–57, June 1997.)
Let Mary Schweitzer, the scientist most involved with this find, take up the story of when her co-workers took turns looking through a microscope at a thin section of this T. rex bone, complete with blood vessel channels.
‘The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, “You’ve got red blood cells. You’ve got red blood cells!”’
Schweitzer confronted her boss, famous paleontologist ‘Dinosaur’ Jack Horner, with her doubts about how these could really be blood cells. Horner suggested she try to prove they were not red blood cells, and she says, ‘So far, we haven’t been able to.’
Read here for more on this matter.
Then, watch this video regarding the find. T. Rex Blood?
Sorry buds, that would qualify as “wishful thinking” to believe soft tissue from a T-Rex Dinosaur could last 68 million years…. even if kept frozen in liquid nitrogen in a heavily fortified lab… lol.. wow, it really is unbelievable this blinding effect the evolutionary doctrine has on scientists. It would seem impossible for such soft structures to be preserved intact even for 6800 years, but evolutionists accept it on faith. Now, the preservation of the T-Rex tissue does make sense if Dinosaurs are only a few thousand years old like the Bible teaches. The Bible states there was a world wide flood that killed of most Dinosaures about 4400 years ago. This explanation better explains the preservation of the tissue and is overwhelmingly more consistent with the belief that the fossils are NOT millions of years old.
apacalyps on April 28, 2008 at 8:15 PM
Point taken but atheists, by definition, are not uncertain about the afterlife. They hold that there is no such thing as an afterlife.
highhopes on April 28, 2008 at 8:18 PM
In case you missed it. Video: Tyrannosaurus Soft Tissue Discovered
apacalyps on April 28, 2008 at 8:19 PM
Probably some regulation or other. I had a woman working for me who got remarried and wanted a hyphenated last name since she had a child by her first husband. It turned out the combination of surnames and a hyphen exceeded the max allowed. She got a letter from BUPERS which actually listed three options for her to consider in lieu of the name she wanted.
highhopes on April 28, 2008 at 8:23 PM
You have three kids who are picky eaters? I feel for you. Me and my younger brother weren’t great eaters, but my older brother would clean his plate and everyone else’s. It made my mom’s day every time.
Esthier on April 28, 2008 at 8:27 PM
No. I’m not joking at all. The earth is not billions of years old. No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal. No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter. Matter cannot make itself out of nothing. It appears to me the jokes been pulled on you. Evolution is very much a religion. You must believe it happened.
Tell me something, MannyT. I’ve asked this question several times and I have not had one evolutionist answer it for me yet. I see you believe in evolution. Okay. Well, to simplify in a nutshell, you believe everything alive today came from a rock. Isn’t that right?
apacalyps on April 28, 2008 at 8:37 PM
I’d hardly call prokaryotes “rocks”.
Maybe if you had more than a superficial understanding of the “religion” you so vigorously denounce you wouldn’t come across as such fool.
Or maybe if you had more than literal understanding of the Bible which you thump so heartily, you might actually be able to make a convincing case for the atheists and give them something intelligent to ponder. As it stands, you’re pretty much living up to every negative stereotype people have of fundamentalists.
Mindcrime on April 28, 2008 at 8:48 PM
highhopes on April 28, 2008 at 8:14 PM
It’s been just over three years. I wasn’t a single parent, just geographically, but I do have a bum knee. About atheist discussions, honestly, I have no idea what they would talk about. I do know some fellow atheists, but the only thing we talk about is sci fi shows (in which, yes, religion comes up, but it’s fictional religion). I wasn’t trying to use sophistry, honestly. More like failed sarcasm.
Esthier – They could be good eaters, but the twins never eat the same thing at the same time. Big sister will eat fine alone and won’t eat around her brothers. The only one that ever cleans a plate around here is the husband though. I hate meal time.
the goddess anna on April 28, 2008 at 9:13 PM
highhopes on April 28, 2008 at 8:23 PM
I was informed by BUPERS also that my first name, which is hyphenated, was to be made into one solid, nonhypenated name. It was also sometimes made into separate names, with the second half (Marie) becoming the middle name. The fact that the military couldn’t figure out my first name caused problems with my clearance (but that’s a whole ‘nother rant about military ineptitude).
Okay, now that I’m horribly off-topic… I’ll admit that in private conversations, yes, I’ve said some nasty things about very religious people. I don’t hate religion or religious people though, and I think that may be a misconception about nonbelievers. Yes, there are those out there that are jerks about it, and unfortunately they are the ones that get all of the attention, but that doesn’t mean that atheists shouldn’t be able to get together to talk about things pertinant to their beliefs. If they want to bash people, whatever. Neither you nor I will be there, and so it effects neither of us. Right?
I think the sudafed has officially warped my brain.
the goddess anna on April 28, 2008 at 9:25 PM
Sorry if I made it sound if I was putting you in the category of single parent. I firmly believe that you can’t serve in the military and single-handedly raise children. It isn’t fair to either the nation or the children.
That being said, you chose a career path where you were in the Navy but not exactly. Your skills sent you to the whole NSA world instead of into the fleet. The Navy needs those skills but the primary mission of the Navy lies elsewhere. My Dad was in intelligence and I am part of the surface Navy. Our experiences are completely different.
highhopes on April 28, 2008 at 9:36 PM
Not trying to be a bully or thug here but WHAT BELIEFS?????
By definition, atheists hold that you live your life and die. That’s it. What is there to discuss?
highhopes on April 28, 2008 at 9:45 PM
Great (smiles). Easier on me than having to deal with your stupid analogies. You call yourself a “Christian”, but you sound more like a scoffer to me, casting doubt on God’s Word at every opportunity you get. This is the type of thing that makes me so nervous about people like you following their own teachings. I see what you say as being totally foreign to God’s Word, and I get real nervous when somebody teaches something where we have to have a guru to explain it. Now you have a cult. Re-read this thread. At every opportunity you challenge the Bible and the way God said He created the world, and you don’t offer a shred of evidence in the way of Scripture to substantiate what you say. You doubt the 6 literal, 24-hour creation days in Genesis, the flood account, you challenge God by implying He did not perfectly preserve His Words in the Holy Bible. What you’re doing is calling God a liar. You’re saying, “I see God you wrote it that way, but I don’t believe that’s how you did it.” It called “idolatry” (making up a non-existent god to suit yourself) and it’s a very serious sin. The Bible tells us clearly in Exodus 20:11, God made everything in six days. Everything in heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that in them is. And if the average layman cannot understand that verse, then the Bible is incapable of being understood. Whether you like it, or not Esthier, the requirements for being a Christian is that he/she believes and accepts the whole teaching of the Bible. The Bible’s simplest interpretation is for a young earth creation account. A Christian cannot just ignore part of the Scripture and still claim to be a Christian.
apacalyps on April 28, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Ah, yes, Oldnuke. I have to say I’m a little dissapointed. See, I suspected you were up to no good asking your “innocent questions” of me, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Sad to say it turns out you’re just a sneak with an ulterior motive to undermine God’s Word. Y’know, the good Lord Jesus said “Ye shall know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16). Wise words indeed.
Here’s the Fundamental Baptist Statement of Faith. Point out what you disagree with? I’d like an answer.
Wow. You’re a liar too. Well, those are your principles, and if they don’t like them… you have others. Show for us one fact in this thread that I have not accepted? Which views do you speak of?
Naturally, I categorically reject this unfortunate ad hominem attack. No falsehood on the part of me has been demonstrated. Folks, don’t let liberal Christians like Oldnuke and Esthier manipulate you into changing your convictions regarding what you know the Scriptures really say. Search out the truth diligently asking the Lord to reveal it to you and He will. Your spiritual investigation on any topic should always start with the spiritual investigation of the person. Do they line up with the Word, not just on the topic at hand, but with other important spiritual topics as well.
apacalyps on April 28, 2008 at 11:16 PM
I’m disappointed in you too, but not much. I had no ulterior motive. My questions were sincere. I don’t expect you to believe that however.
Never said I disagreed with it.
Which part am I lying about? Don’t your beliefs run deep? Or the accepting other beliefs part. I couldn’t lie about that it’s just my opinion which you reject.
That wasn’t an attack. It was a statement about myself indicating my beliefs, which you rejected.
This is an attack.
Nowhere did I give you any indication that I was a Christian liberal or otherwise.
And now like Esthier, I am through with you. Feel free to smile.
Oldnuke on April 28, 2008 at 11:50 PM
You don’t even understand your own theory, buds. Folks, with alot of these evolutionists, you must remind them what their own theory teaches because they don’t know. You believe you came from a rock.
apacalyps on April 28, 2008 at 11:53 PM
You’ve lied about alot of things and Rose was right to call you out regarding the things you said about fundamental Christians. Thank you Rose. For instance, you said, “Their beliefs (ie, fundamental Christians) run very deep and they will accept no dissenting views as valid no matter the facts that support them.) That is a bold faced lie. I’m asking you again Oldnuke, show me one fact posted here that I have not accepted.
apacalyps on April 29, 2008 at 12:06 AM
Bible is an ancient collection of stupid, contradictory and immoral tales.
freevillage on April 29, 2008 at 12:20 AM
You’re red shirt goes well with your eyes…
apacalyps on April 29, 2008 at 12:28 AM
And yet there it is. Preserved for 68 million years as evidenced by 68 million year old fossil it was found in. Those whacky science cultists! With their strange ideas like “Mathematics” and “Chemistry”. Clearly they need to be thrown out completely and replaced with the ravings of cave dwelling half starved Roman fanatics who we know must be right because they swear God told them. You keep harping on this as though it proves the earth is 6000 years old. Common sense says this tissue can’t be 68 million years old? Apparently the same common sense the tells you that, despite the mountains of evidence of the ancient origins of the universe, It was all magically created by some extra-dimensional wizard who just made all look ancient eff with heads. Apparently extra-dimensional wizards find that a real knee slapper! Silly humans. Earlier I presented a partial list of evidence that must be accounted for in order for your ridiculous assertions to be accepted.
ronsfi on April 28, 2008 at 2:41 AM
You can’t answer the evidence so you ignore it.
Thanks for clogging another thread with your mental diarrhea.
ronsfi on April 29, 2008 at 6:55 AM
The Bible is fiction no better than the Hindu Veda, the Buddhist Tipitaka or the old Norse tales for that matter. The old Nordic and Germanic gods are no longer worshiped by many and the old writings live on as literary fiction. The same will eventually be the destiny of the Bible and the other ‘holy’ books.
If one chooses to argue starting from the premise that the Bible (or some other sacred tome) is the unerring word of their deity and all must accept this as axiomatic then rational discussion of religion, except with fellow cultists, is impossible.
Annar on April 29, 2008 at 7:19 AM
Welcome to the club! Refreshments are to your left.
Though your tone is needlessly inflammatory you are correct. No believer can argue with a nonbeliever beginning with the given that the Bible is perfect.
But that’s just common sense. I don’t understand why you spent time putting that thought into this thread. No one has tried to argue otherwise.
Esthier on April 29, 2008 at 9:40 AM
Wishful thinking. Sorry, I guess you’ll just have to cope with it.
tom on April 29, 2008 at 10:16 AM
So he could call the Bible fiction, and all who believe it cultists? And claim they were impervious to facts?
Of course, it’s the pot calling the kettle black…
tom on April 29, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Very likely. Some people are almost angry that religious beliefs still exist in the world and that people haven’t moved “beyond” them, as though that will somehow be the end of conflict in the world without realizing that people fight irrespective of their religious beliefs.
That should be evidence here, where like-minded people get into fights over the very small differences between us, but the promise of an earthly utopia can blind people to the truth of human nature.
Esthier on April 29, 2008 at 10:42 AM
If the first page is anything to go by, this is about 90% ‘god exists!’ ‘no he doesn’t!’ and 10% to do with the actual story.
Bugger.
Still hard to believe such officers would exist in the army. How on earth would they able to cooperate with the rest of the coalition armies?
Reaps on April 29, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Yes, that’s about right, with a little “you’re stupid!” “no, you’re stupid!” thrown during talks about dinosaurs and feces.
Then again, that’s pretty much the tenor of any post even remotely related to religion.
Esthier on April 29, 2008 at 2:27 PM
I really didn’t want to respond to Esthier here, but this is too much. I think this women suffers from Tourette blurting (no offense to those who have the awful condition). Esthier (ie, the liberal Christian) stop making these false statements on behalf of all Christians. What you have stated is NOT true and not supported by Scripture. The majority of Christians believe the Bible to be the perfect and true Word of God. Look, if you have the urge to lie, take a deep breath, and shout out “dandelions!” or “little fuzzy bunnies!” or “sunshine and M&Ms!” or “peaches, instead!”
apacalyps on April 29, 2008 at 3:32 PM
hahahaha….oh, this is too much. Look buds, as I posted before, it qualifies as “wishful thinking” to believe soft tissue from a T-Rex Dinosaur could last 68 million years…. even if kept frozen in liquid nitrogen in a lab… Ronsfi, I think the problem you’re having here is comprehending 68 millions years — how long that is. I think 100 years is a long time. And that 500 years is a long time. 5000 years too. Let’s try 100,000 years. Okay 500,000 thousand years. We’re talking about 68 million years and I think you really have to put this into perspective that it would seem impossible for such soft tissue structures to be preserved intact even for that long.
apacalyps on April 29, 2008 at 3:43 PM
I don’t see the point in spending what to me is valuable time answering every little hateful attack from people like you when they are just like Doritos: Defend away, we’ll make more. Everything on that “list” you posted can be disproven. Besides, the topic at hand was the issue of the preserved soft tissue, including possible blood vessels and red blood cells, that are turning up in dinosaur fossils. That is credible evidence of a young earth and that Dinosaurs are not million of years old. Furthermore, I posted evidence that the Earth was rapidly formed and did not cool over millions of years. It appears you conveniently overlooked that discovery as well. Evolution teaches that in the beginning there was nothing then it exploded. This is what you believe. Even though everyone knows that that matter could not come from nothing exploding.
apacalyps on April 29, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Correction: I posted the wrong link in the above post.
Here is the correct one.
Evidence that the Earth was rapidly formed and did not cool over millions of years.
apacalyps on April 29, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Obviously ignoring you doesn’t work. But seriously, how is it possible for you to completely mangle my comments like you do?
I wasn’t saying that Christians don’t believe the Bible is true.
Seriously, look back and read what I actually wrote. I wrote that a Christian should not argue with a non-Christian starting with the given that the Bible is 100% true.
Isn’t that obvious?
The non-Christian doesn’t agree that the Bible is true, so you can’t argue with a non-Christian and assume that the non-Christian will accept that the Bible is accurate.
In layman’s terms, what I’m saying is that you can’t have a legitimate discussion with someone who is not a Christian over whether or not God exists by using the Bible as proof.
It’s a logical fallacy, since the non-Christian will not accept the Bible as proof.
Seriously, do not bother commenting to me anymore. You’re a hateful person, and I want nothing to do with you. Even if you suddenly learned how to talk to people online without insulting them, it would only be too little too late.
Esthier on April 29, 2008 at 4:51 PM
What a moron.
apacalyps on April 29, 2008 at 7:38 PM
Unfortunately no. The Bible is a weapon in the hand of the Christian.
“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword.” Hebrews 4:12
2 Timothy 3:16 states that, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
“For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.” Romans 10:11
apacalyps on April 29, 2008 at 7:40 PM
I don’t hate you Esthier. I really don’t. My prayers are for you that you will start trusting God’s Word instead of your own.
“He that speaketh lies shall not escape.” Proverbs 19:5
apacalyps on April 29, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5