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: 1 2 3 ... 5 Next »
Is there anything to consider other than Christianity?
richardcamera on April 26, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Allah, I would love to debate you on the existence of G-d. I can prove He does exist, even to the satisfaction of an atheist. Do you think you can prove He does not?
stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 6:23 PM
You solved the mystery of the ages? By all means, you should write it up and contact a publisher. I dare say there’s a book deal in that for you.
Allahpundit on April 26, 2008 at 6:26 PM
What kind of asshat holds an atheist meeing in freaking Iraq? If you don’t believe in GOD, then why the hell do you feel the need to prostelyze (sp) about it? And why do it where yo enforce the whole great satan thing?
This guy is an idiot.
Spartacus on April 26, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Did you say Major? It should be Mullah.
End of discussion.
winemkr on April 26, 2008 at 6:34 PM
stonemeister,
If you seriously want to debate the issue in a well-read form at a popular discussion board, let me know. There can be a structured debate with site members as judges. Members run the gamut from devout Christiant to confirmed athiest and a debate about the existence of God would get a lot of attention. Email me at robertwarrenjones AT juno DOT com if you’d like to know more. Could be a hoot!
Tuning Spork on April 26, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Smells bad from here. Has to be a bit more to this story. I knew plenty of non-believers in the service.
Limerick on April 26, 2008 at 6:36 PM
Hey, dude, I am! No kidding! It’s a long write-up, and it’s science based. I’m writing it up to subject it to peer review. And no, I’m not a Jesus-freak, bible thumping kook (if that’s your characterization). I’m a Jewish scientist and engineer. Just happened to think along certain lines, and thought I was onto something.
You have my contact info, AP, give me a call and I’ll give you the short version!
stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 6:36 PM
It’s
WARJIHADNOT FAIR!Or something like that.
TwinkietheKid on April 26, 2008 at 6:38 PM
It’s impossible to prove a negative.
Esthier on April 26, 2008 at 6:40 PM
“Dying for one’s country doesn’t come naturally. Modern armies, raised from the populace, must be inspired, motivated, indoctrinated. Religion is central to military enterprise, for men are more likely to risk their lives if they believe they will be rewarded forever after serving their country…”
Michael Ledeen, Machiavelli on Modern Leadership
LevStrauss on April 26, 2008 at 6:42 PM
@ stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 6:36 PM
You can’t offer a very simplified version of your theory here? Cause remember, all you have is a theory until its observed and tested. A very simplified version of your proof would be most welcome.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 6:43 PM
Of course it is. We’ve been saying for how long that the war on Poverty is not working, we can’t seem to prove that negative. Probably because John McCain is on the other side screaming at us that we’re racists for wanting a better life for people.
Snake307 on April 26, 2008 at 6:43 PM
@ LevStrauss on April 26, 2008 at 6:42 PM
Yet the Pope rides around in an armored car specially engineered to try and avoid death at all points. You would think that someone SO devout to their religion which teaches this life is but a gateway to eternity in heaven would welcome death, but instead he hides from it like the rest of us.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 6:45 PM
Association of Atheists and Freethinkers
Guardian on April 26, 2008 at 6:45 PM
Spork, I would LOVE such a forum. I just didn’t want to do it via chat or message board, as I’m already doing enough typing on the subject, trying to write a scientific paper on it. I might just write it up as a paper instead, it’s so much easier, and get it published in a mag or newspaper.
But I’d be happy to discuss it, might find flaws in my logic (I doubt that!).
stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 6:45 PM
I’d be hard pressed to know who to believe here without learning more about what sort of people are involved. I’ve seen plenty of intolerant Christians but I’ve also seen plenty of intolerant atheists.
Rip Ford on April 26, 2008 at 6:46 PM
I tried that on my bank a few years ago. Apparently they disagree with you. :)
Guardian on April 26, 2008 at 6:46 PM
@ Killgore Trout on April 26, 2008 at 6:45 PM
Get ready for the endless amount of scripture that will be quoted whenever you post now that you have admitted to being godless, like me.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 6:46 PM
When an atheist swears to tell the truth, what or who exactly is he swearing to? If you don’t believe that you are going to burn in hell for telling a lie, then why should anyone believe you?
And in this case it is one Christian’s word against an atheist.
AZCON on April 26, 2008 at 6:47 PM
@ AZCON on April 26, 2008 at 6:47 PM
So a free man in America who swears upon his life when questioned is not to be trusted, but an Iraqi under the brutal hand of Saddam who swears upon his life should be trusted? Wonderful argument you have.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 6:48 PM
So it’s a freethinkers society but he doesn’t want to be challenged? I think I’m confused.
Just because an officer takes you on with respect to your beliefs doesn’t mean you should whine about it. I had my fair share of being challenged by officers and enlisted people alike while I was in the military. All the specialist needed to do was continue to stand up for what he believed in (or didn’t believe in) and have a discussion. This whining could make me suspect he was looking for such an interaction.
Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Technically, it’s not a theory, it’s a discussion that arrives at a logical conclusion that G-d (or something waaay more powerful than us) would have to exist. Technically, proof carries a different standard.
But it would qualify as a proof in the lay community, and I believe other people probably have stumbled across that same line of thinking.
stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 6:48 PM
I’ll guarantee you that any Iraqi with a gun to his head believes in God or at least Allah.
AZCON on April 26, 2008 at 6:49 PM
@ stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Then I can say with ALL confidence you have not proven that God exists, but rather have proven that we dont have all of the information as to how the universe works. I cannot fathom how one could prove the existence of God, and not have say, the flying Spaghetti monster as a substitute for God being proven as well.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 6:50 PM
Don’t tell that to the guys that believe in the theory of evolution. I had that debate one time on Kos and my keyboard is still smoking.
Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 6:51 PM
@ AZCON on April 26, 2008 at 6:49 PM
I can gaurantee there were a lot of people who had guns to their heads BECAUSE they DIDN’t believe in God or Allah.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 6:51 PM
AP I dare say there is a great deal separating the conservative Atheist from the Lefty Atheist. A great deal. Wouldn’t you agree?
ronsfi on April 26, 2008 at 6:52 PM
@ Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 6:51 PM
Evolution is between a theory and proven. Many parts of it have been observed and tested, but as a whole it has not. You can derive from that either that its partially proven or that its still a theory.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 6:52 PM
Actually, the Bible also teaches us that life is a gift of God that should be treasured.
So looking forward to eternal life with God in Heaven doesn’t keep us from enjoying life here on earth. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Esthier on April 26, 2008 at 6:53 PM
@ muyoso
That’s sounds like being kind of pregnant. :P
Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 6:53 PM
ruh-ro…brace yourselves for a super-mega thread…
Of course, we all know the future sees the Unified Atheist League, the United Atheist Alliance, and the Allied Atheist Allegiance battling it out. Otters!…
Although I have the utmost respect for anyone’s decision regarding God and religion, I can never fully understand how someone can deny the existence of God, rather than take the agnostic view of simply not knowing.
Nice one.
JetBoy on April 26, 2008 at 6:54 PM
I would say that there is more than meets the eye. Perhaps the meeting was explicitly forbidden? There are many non-Christians in the Army, however if the Major said what is claimed, is doesn’t look so good.
My guess: We will never hear about this again.
Canerican on April 26, 2008 at 6:54 PM
@ Killgore Trout on April 26, 2008 at 6:51 PM
See, I would take a situation like that and just start pointing out all of the logical fallacies I could come up with , until they were sufficiently pissed off to tell me to leave or until some of them started to give. I hate being put in situations like that, but if I am, I am fighting until someone gives up.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Gotta go with Doc here about just standing up. Now the issue about having problems with other men in the outfit may well have been a valid reason to rotate him home. It also could have nothing to do with his religion or lack thereof.
Limerick on April 26, 2008 at 6:54 PM
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 6:50 PM
OK, I’m thinking of a way to do that. Thing is, I’d have to give a refresher on Information Theory and my orders of encoding to even broach the DNA treatment. That’s what I mean, it’s really hard to give a “brief” discussion: if I skip some of the really solid points that require a certain knowledge of math and terminology, it makes the discussion sound very weak. Including it makes the discussion long and sounding somewhat complex. Rock and a hard place.
stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 6:55 PM
Did someone mention proof? It’s a cool read anyway.
Guardian on April 26, 2008 at 6:55 PM
Why is what the major said unacceptable or against regulations when it was an open meeting? Did he order someone to believe in something? I still don’t see the issue. Please help
Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 6:56 PM
@ Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 6:53 PM
There is no such thing as kind of pregnant. Take a car for example. You CAN have a car, kind of working. It could run, but only intermittently. Its engine could be working, but the transmission not. If you consider a car not “working” until the entire thing operates fluidly, then you would probably consider evolution a theory. If you consider the car partially working if the engine fires up and the stereo can play, then you could consider evolution partially proven.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 6:57 PM
As did I.
baldilocks on April 26, 2008 at 6:57 PM
So it’s a freethinkers society but he doesn’t want to be challenged? I think I’m confused.
Just because an officer takes you on with respect to your beliefs doesn’t mean you should whine about it. I had my fair share of being challenged by officers and enlisted people alike while I was in the military. All the specialist needed to do was continue to stand up for what he believed in (or didn’t believe in) and have a discussion. This whining could make me suspect he was looking for such an interaction.
Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 6:48 PM
winemkr on April 26, 2008 at 6:58 PM
@ Guardian on April 26, 2008 at 6:55 PM
Take a read through here. ID has been thoroughly debunked.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 6:58 PM
I’ve read that before. Sounds good, but the author pulled his probabilities out of his a**, there’s no way to come up with those numbers. He might be right, but there’s no way to know. a proof cannot be based on opinion. That’s called faith.
stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 6:59 PM
My mom’s boyfriend used to show me how he “proved” that God existed with math and physical principles. It always struck me as bizarre.
If such a thing was possible wouldn’t it eliminate the necessity of the Holy Spirit manifesting the truth inside each man’s heart.
Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 6:59 PM
@ stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 6:55 PM
I hope you take all of this information into consideration:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:00 PM
If fish were furry, evolutionists would explain, “of course the fish has adapted fur, it is cold in the water”!
And if elephants had big scoop on the end or its trunk, “that is an adaptation so the elephant can throw water and dust on its back”!
And if lions had a third eye in the back of their heads: “everyone knows the lion evolved an eye on the back or its head so it could be on the lookout when it is sleeping”!
And if octopus were flat black:”an evolutionary trait, so the octopus can hide in deep dark water”!
Evolution is completely made up.
AZCON on April 26, 2008 at 7:00 PM
@ AZCON on April 26, 2008 at 7:00 PM
That could be the dumbest thing I ever read. Of COURSE we would say things like that. Why would you explain that a polar bear has thick fur and its fur is white? Cause God really liked white furry things that day? Why are all animals adapted to the environment they are in? How DARE people try and explain why parts of animals exist in relation to their environment, LOL.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:02 PM
This story is from the same New York Times that, in the last eight years (at least), has f-ed up nearly every one of its stories about the military. And most of the errors have been willfully made. Now the Times presumes to tell a story about the military and Christianity.
HUMMM (sic)
I’ll wait before coming to a conclusion about this.
baldilocks on April 26, 2008 at 7:03 PM
LOL….beer run!
Limerick on April 26, 2008 at 7:04 PM
No. Again, just so ya know where I’m coming from, I’m Catholic. And in that belief, it’s entirely understandable and acceptable that creation AND evolution co-exist. He created all in the universe from nothing…but evolution certainly doesn’t have to be discounted.
JetBoy on April 26, 2008 at 7:04 PM
@winemkr
I disagree. The officers that took me on when I was a lowly E-2 received answers to their challenges. You can’t be subject to punishment under the UCMJ for a discussion at a meeting. I don’t know about the Marine Corps but I’m guessing that the UCMJ is the same across the board. Of course, if the specialist was simply looking for something to whine about then I understand why he responded like a hurt pup.
Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 7:04 PM
Wow! It’s amazing how easy it is to be pulled out of context and squeezed into a pigeonhole! I never said anything about Creationism (which I don’t believe in, BTW). Similarly, I’m not discussing the validity of any religion, scripture, talismans, sermons (on or off mounts).
I’m just saying that I’ve developed a treatise that concludes, with validity, that we’re not just molecular accidents, and that we had to be designed (assumedly by a someone) deliberately and with great effort.
I will publish it, believe me, just not in this blog. Who knows, maybe Allah or MM would like to do it?
stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Two-buck Chuck run.
baldilocks on April 26, 2008 at 7:06 PM
And if finches in the Pacific developed eight foot wingspans: “would you want to be stuck on Easter Island just so Darwin could come poke at you”?
AZCON on April 26, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Is the same as saying that “It is not possible to prove a negative.”
Which is asserting a negative.
Which is, apparently, impossible to prove.
So how do we know if it’s true or not?
29Victor on April 26, 2008 at 7:06 PM
You’re a real stinker, aren’t you?
stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 7:08 PM
@ stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 7:06 PM
I am not saying you did. There is more on that page than things relating to creationism. There is rebuttals of hundreds of common arguments that both “prove the existence of God”. I would be very interested if you in fact did, but I must remain skeptical, because its been claimed hundreds of times before. Please just make sure you don’t claim God exists because the banana fits in the human hand, or any of that nonsense.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:08 PM
@ AZCON on April 26, 2008 at 7:06 PM
????????????????????????
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Sorry dude. You are going to have to wrestle with the concept that without ID you are left with the conclusion that a couple of rocks got horny and started breeding. There were no DNA, RNA, amino acids or proteins created from the big bang. All of which had to exist simultaneously and in correct order and proportions for the first life to spring from.
I read recently that a single strand of DNA contains enough information to fill several thousand books. All of which must be in exact sequence before life could take place. If you believe in odds of something like that happening by chance then you should definitely play the lottery. :)
Guardian on April 26, 2008 at 7:10 PM
Also…
1) I think this story (at least as far as it was told) is more than likely a load of crap.
and….
2) I’ll bet that when Allahpundit got bored as a child he used to put a couple of bees in a jar and shake up the jar to make them fight. Then he became a man and he put away childish jars… and got a blog instead and did the same thing.
We are nothing but bees in the blog-jar of Allah, fighting for his amusement.
29Victor on April 26, 2008 at 7:10 PM
Just went to that site and followed the links dealing with epistemological arguments and counter arguments, and I have to say it was pretty weak. The topics it covered and their corresponding arguments wouldn’t even normally fall under any study of epistemology. I didn’t look under the rest of the topics, maybe they are better, but this topic in particular was lacking.
For instance:
Neither the claim nor the response has an direct relationship to the philosophical discipline of epistemology. Maybe I’m not navigating the site correctly, but like I said that’s not very good.
Weight of Glory on April 26, 2008 at 7:11 PM
@AZCON
I used to give Darwinists the benefit of the doubt. I used to think well maybe there was a possibility to that process but the more I read the more inexplicable the idea became. Ann Coulter’s book Godless does an excellent job of giving Darwin the thrashing he deserves. It is a sentiment that I have heard many times and I will paraphrase – At the end of the day I simply don’t have enough faith to believe in evolution. I need to believe in something more tangible – like the Bible.
Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 7:11 PM
he, he, he…
29Victor on April 26, 2008 at 7:11 PM
Oh great, now athiests are a victim group?
Capitalist Infidel on April 26, 2008 at 7:12 PM
I think the threatening his re-enlistment was the most controversial part.
Esthier on April 26, 2008 at 7:13 PM
…should have added: But I’m right, aren’t I?
29Victor on April 26, 2008 at 7:14 PM
@ Guardian on April 26, 2008 at 7:10 PM
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF003.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:14 PM
I’ll put you in my will, really. You’ve earned it, one laughing tear, at a time.
Entelechy on April 26, 2008 at 7:15 PM
@Esthier
If he did that then the major should do time. The easiest way to deal with this kind of thing though is to stand up to the misbehavior and follow the chain of command. Do we know if this guy did this or did he just go to Daily Kos?
Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 7:16 PM
@ Mormon Doc on April 26, 2008 at 7:11 PM
You believe in the Bible over all of modern science? And you claim that is tangible? The book that says that the world is only 6000 years old, when we know for a fact its older than that? wow. The problem with a lot of creationists, is that they seriously believe that there is “darwinism” and argue against the science that was available during Darwin’s life. They totally ignore ALL modern evidence that backs up Darwin’s theory.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:16 PM
That is certainly part of it!
DNA really is a core of the beginning of my treatise. As I said, it’s not a proof really, that’s something different. If Allah wants to give space, I’ll do it, but c’mon, not in this blog. This is better for discussion, and we’re hearing alot of good discussion points on this topic already.
stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 7:18 PM
I makes more sense to me that there is a God than “two rocks got horny”.
And, regarding atheist victims. Is it possible to be both an atheist and a martyr?
AZCON on April 26, 2008 at 7:19 PM
…Great, another religious thread. I’m calling the riot police early for this one.
Capitana on April 26, 2008 at 7:19 PM
I certainly don’t. Then again, I’m still hoping the story is false.
Really? Which verse dates the earth? My version leaves the dates out.
Esthier on April 26, 2008 at 7:20 PM
I know this wasn’t aimed at me, but if I may: It’s only the fundamentalists and evangelicals that take the Bible literally in regards to years and such, and how old the Earth is.
But again, it seems illogical to simply deny the existence of God. All that’s in the Universe didn’t just happen.
On the other hand, one can’t deny evolution here on Earth either. All part of God’s master plan.
JetBoy on April 26, 2008 at 7:21 PM
@ AZCON on April 26, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Just because you have NO CLUE what evolution is, doesn’t mean that its wrong. Your explanation of evolution is the equivalent of me saying that Christianity is where God began a giant incestuous orgy in the Garden of Eden, and then brought a zombie to earth to prove his existence.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:21 PM
Of course.
Esthier on April 26, 2008 at 7:21 PM
@ Esthier on April 26, 2008 at 7:20 PM
There is no date, but if you follow through and count the years, the common understanding is that the bible dates the world to around 6010 years old.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Now you’ve got me defending the bible! The bible does NOT say the earth is 6,000 years old, that was a conclusion from a theologian (can’t remember who, I’m bad at names).
Likewise, the first scientific analysis yielded an age of 3 million years for the age of the earth (again, can’t remember who). But that was really wrong, too. Doesn’t mean the science was wrong, just that he didn’t have enough data.
I believe the bible (old testament or torah) is mostly an historical document. Alot of facts in the bible have been verified just in the past 100 years, it’s getting somewhat silly to keep saying “okay, well that part might be true, but the rest is hogwash” every time a fact is verified.
But those viewpoints aren’t part of the discussion I’d like to make.
stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 7:23 PM
I just get a kick out of reading this.
There were only two soldiers attending this gathering of “freethinkers” then?
ToddonCapeCod on April 26, 2008 at 7:23 PM
Esth…I forget, are you Catholic as well?
JetBoy on April 26, 2008 at 7:23 PM
This question is based on some major misconceptions (addressed below). Its overriding logical error, however, is that it is an argument from ignorance. One’s inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer.
That’s as far as I got muyoso. That sounds like a campaign slogan for the Dems!
Seriously though. Neither of those links help your case in any way. They are full of “could have” and ” might have”. The fact remains that as far as we know life can not spontaneously erupt from inorganic material.
Even with all of our science, man can not create life from scratch. If we ever do, logic would dictate that that life was in fact created. AS far as I know, No one has managed to stir up some chemicals in a test tube and life spontaneously erupted.
Guardian on April 26, 2008 at 7:23 PM
@ JetBoy on April 26, 2008 at 7:21 PM
Thats fine that you believe that. No one is trying to change your mind at all, but saying that the universe didn’t just happen is of pure conjecture. There is a lot of evidence that shows that it did, “just happen”. What began it is still a mystery of course, but again, simple ignorance of its cause does not point to a divine cause.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:24 PM
What is the name of the animal that came between the T.Rex and the chicken?
AZCON on April 26, 2008 at 7:24 PM
Your the winner. The first to bring up the Pope.
Zorro on April 26, 2008 at 7:25 PM
The appetizer…
29Victor on April 26, 2008 at 7:26 PM
That’s common to YOU. The torah was written in ancient Hebrew, and then translated to ancient Greek, then Latin, then old English. A lot was lost in translation. For instance, when the Earth was created in 6 “days”, the term used was far more generic than “24-hour periods”. It really meant 6 “stages”. That could have been half a billion years each!
There are a whole lot of misconceptions about the bible.
stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 7:26 PM
You’re absolutely right. He based his number solely on the genealogies listed, without realizing that there may have been many more generations between those listed. Sadly, many Christians are still falling prey to that poor bit of exegesis.
Weight of Glory on April 26, 2008 at 7:27 PM
LOL! Funniest blog line of the week!
stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 7:27 PM
Ha. Nice.
Weight of Glory on April 26, 2008 at 7:27 PM
@ Guardian on April 26, 2008 at 7:23 PM
I didnt think that anyone had a theory where life just sprang out of a test tube where people threw chemicals in? Apparently I was wrong.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2002/02_33AR.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB025.html
So, I guess you were wrong.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:28 PM
As an atheist and a veteran, I would say SPC Hall’s story is more truth than fiction.
Every unit I was in had soldiers march in Christmas parades, attend tree-lighting ceremonies, attend military functions that took place inside of churches (they were non-religous, but there were plenty of other places that were open to the functions) and every change of command/responsibility ceremony, brigade run, etc. had to have an invocation somewhere in there.
I have no problems with the invocations at coc/r ceremonies since it is tradition. The runs, however, plus everthing else I mentioned is pushing it. Whenever I brought up that I thought it was inappropriate to force non-christians into doing things that christians do for reasons based on their faith, I was berated. Platoon Sergeants, First Sergeants, Majors, it didn’t matter. I was told to shut up and deal with it.
Blarg the Destroyer on April 26, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Exactly. Last weekend certain blogs were quoting the AP to the same end.
Zorro on April 26, 2008 at 7:29 PM
But, to be only logical, to say the “big bang” just “happened” wouldn’t make sense. And again, the “Big bang” is still just theory, with a few holes in it. Science is constantly being corrected. And corrected again. But one thing strict evolutionists and athiests cannot reconcile is the human soul. Or, if you prefer, our “inner selves”.
JetBoy on April 26, 2008 at 7:29 PM
@ stonemeister on April 26, 2008 at 7:26 PM
I am sorry, I am taking literal translations, and not “could haves” or “maybes”. The same would be expected of anyone arguing for evolution.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:30 PM
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 6:45 PM
Ledeen would probably agree with you on the pope, he likened Luther with Machiavelli. Yet even so that would not refute the rest of your comment.
LevStrauss on April 26, 2008 at 7:30 PM
I was being a little sarcastic. I know where they get it from; however, it leaves out a lot of information.
For instance, the Bible has Adam and Eve being created as adults. Considering that the world would not have been able to house humans until it reached a specific age, it’s easy to infer that the world was that age at the time when Adam and Eve arrived.
At best the Bible tells us that humans have been around for 6000 years, but even that is dependent on learning how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden.
Also, after Cain killed Able, God placed a mark on his forehead before sending him on his way. He did that to tell the others not to harm him, even though at the time, the Bible had only mentioned Adam, Eve, Cain and Able.
Obviously the Bible doesn’t list everyone, which also complicates dating the earth.
Esthier on April 26, 2008 at 7:30 PM
NASA SCIENTISTS CREATE AMINO ACIDS IN DEEP-SPACE-LIKE ENVIRONMENT
Sorry Myuso. Try again. I didn’t get past the headline.:)
Guardian on April 26, 2008 at 7:31 PM
@ JetBoy on April 26, 2008 at 7:29 PM
The “soul” as you say is not something measurable or quantifiable. Its the name we place on the ability to think and formulate advanced thought. The fact that we have the largest brains of any other species is pretty good evidence of why we might have this “soul” you speak of.
muyoso on April 26, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Judaism
So Christians always tell the truth? Is Allah a liar because he is an Atheist?
Pam on April 26, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 5 Next »