Foxhole Atheist Jeremy Hall Tells His Story

“During the Korean War, the draft was in effect, and there was some indication that I might be required to go into military service. In a preliminary session at the draft board office, I was interviewed by an army colonel. He was obviously concerned about me after I gave several
indications that I might have problems about killing in battle. I distinctively remember that colonel looking across his desk at me and
sternly asking me why I had doubts about the rightness of killing for my country. I told him about reading In His Steps and said I was trying to figure out what Jesus would do if He were in my shoes. The colonel asked me directly, ADo you think you could shoot another human being or drop bombs from an airplane?

I answered, ‘If I got into a plane and flew over an enemy village, just before I pulled the lever to release the bombs, I would have to ask, “Jesus,
if you were in my place, would you drop these bombs?”

The colonel answered me gruffly, “That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard. Everybody knows that Jesus would never drop bombs!”

Tony Compolo

I can’t speak for atheists, but I have trouble believing there are serious, Christ-followers in the military, religious maybe, but not those who associate with Jesus.

Still it’s nice to know that religious people aren’t the only ones who are pro-war isn’t it?

Fucking ridiculous. Mr. Hall ought to be honorably relieved of duty to avert further targeting, but draw a full pension. The guy who used his rank to violate everything the country stands for ought to be dishonorably discharged. That’s what I would call justice.

Lex – that’s the equivalent of saying “they’re not real Christians.” Every Christian says that about other Christians who make them look bad. The problem is not with their interpretation of Christianity. The differences are subtle nuances at best. The problem is Christianity itself.

@postsimian,

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree that any Xian can use that excuse (just as an atheist might separate themselves from a social-darwinist), you have to learn to look beyond the person to what is actually supposed to be the standard.

The standard as set by the Christ that all true Christians follow is love God and love your neighbour – do as you would want done to you – how can anyone disagree with a moral code such as this?

So when someone professes Christianity allows them to drop bombs on others, or allows them to exclude others and treat them wrongly – it’s not a subtle nuance as you disingenuously put it.. they’re actually in direct conflict with what they are supposed to believe (IF they truly are Xian) – therefore YES I bloody-well do call their faith into question!

(Note, this is not the same as someone who professes Christ yet admits they are NOT doing as they should ie. just as a sports person might say ‘I didn’t put the team first’ or a teacher might say ‘I didn’t teach that class the right things’).

Lex:

It’s not disingenuous at all. If you ask people what they believe about Jesus or the bible, you’ll tend to get very similar answers. Still, it is the bible that gives those who use Christianity to drop bombs on others the authority to do it. There are enough passages in the bible that one can find justification for any evil they desire. Entire followings are based and things like this which, when compared to the body of shared beliefs between them and those like you, is but a subtle nuance.

If you want to commit genocide against people who think differently, the bible has plenty of support for that. If you want to murder something, there are passages which condone that. Want to dehumanize and subjugate others? You’ve come to the right place.

Let me ask you this: if people who choose to do these things have such a lack of faith (or a false faith), why do they consistently resort to their bibles to find divine support for their actions? Why this, rather than just doing it, and to hell with the consequences?

Coyly pretending the only things the bible commands or condones is “love God and love your neighbor/treat others the way you wish to be treated,” that’s disingenuous. Unless you and the majority of other Christians are prepared to abandon the whole of the Old Testament (and a fair percentage of the New Testament), which I seriously doubt that you are, then I’m calling shenanigans.

Finally, I’ve yet to meet an atheist who considered themselves a social Darwinist, though I would imagine some exist. On the contrary, Social Darwinism is an ideology I frequently witness among those in the religious right, who we are diametrically opposed to. Using that as a comparison to what seems to be a mandatory disowning of Christians by Christians when they do something embarrassing is, in short, a false analogy.

Buddy, perhaps you should learn what logic is before you start criticizing it. Again you use the logical fallacy known as the false analogy. Worse than that, you’re flat-out misrepresenting what I’ve said. Nowhere did I even hint that “any book that contains information about war or violence… is a manifesto for war.”

First off, the bible is claimed to be the holy word of God, not some dime novel. Second, find me a single history or science book which demands servitude from the reader and gives examples of when child abuse, murder, rape and genocide are moral actions. Let me know how that search goes.

Second: I’m beginning to wonder if your comprehension is intentional or accidental. Here you blatantly misrepresent an earlier statement:

Coyly pretending the only things the bible commands or condones is “love God and love your neighbor/treat others the way you wish to be treated,” that’s disingenuous. Unless you and the majority of other Christians are prepared to abandon the whole of the Old Testament (and a fair percentage of the New Testament), which I seriously doubt that you are, then I’m calling shenanigans.

…by combining it with this one, then issuing a response:

Finally, I’ve yet to meet an atheist who considered themselves a social Darwinist, though I would imagine some exist. On the contrary, Social Darwinism is an ideology I frequently witness among those in the religious right, who we are diametrically opposed to. Using that as a comparison to what seems to be a mandatory disowning of Christians by Christians when they do something embarrassing is, in short, a false analogy.

Again, my problem with Social Darwinism, not the Old Testament, is what puts me at diametric odds with the religious right. This is not difficult to express, nor is it difficult to understand.

And yes, I’ve read the bible word for word, cover to cover, as I come from a conservative Christian background and attended a Christian school in which a mandatory bible class was taken each semester. I had guidance with what passages were supposed to mean. Please, do cease to limit your attempts to stifle the conversation by attacking my credibility. Respond to what is being said, or don’t bother.

As for what is “falsely interpreted,” that’s exactly the problem. Interpretation is incredibly subjective. There are those who will disagree with your assessment of what constitutes a false interpretation. What measurement do we apply to determine whose interpretation is correct? Furthermore, what makes destructive interpretations so potent is the absolute authority claimed by the text. God regularly commands the Israelites to kill every man woman and child of a group that doesn’t agree with them, even going so far as to cut pregnant women open just in case. Surely you see the problem with this. If God is good and commands things like that, who are we to question it, right?

Now you’re going to say “that was the Old Testament! Jesus says ____.” Again, if you want to make a serious claim that the Old Testament doesn’t count anymore because Jesus said the greatest commandments were to love God and love your neighbor, then abandon it.

Oh, that’s right, you can’t! Why not? Because nothing was abolished. Nothing was nullified. In Jesus own words: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

That’s from Matthew 5:17-18. Or maybe I’m just interpreting incorrectly, right?

The Law he’s referring to are the laws of Moses, which can be found in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Among the greatest hits are:

1) Rebellious teenagers are to be put to death (Leviticus 20:9)
2) Adultery is punishable by death (Leviticus 20:10)
3) Homosexuals are to be put to death (Leviticus 20:13)
4) Citizens of foreign cities are to become your slaves. If they refuse, kill every man and plunder then women and goods. In cities God says are yours, kill every last one of them (Deuteronomy 20:10-17)

…to name a few. Adherence to the laws of Moses were also frequently mentioned in the New Testament, including the gospels and Paul’s letters. But maybe that’s just my “limited understanding” speaking. *headdesk*

—

Lastly: A scotoma? Honestly? If you’re going to attack me rather than what I’ve said, as you are apparently wont to do, there is no point to this conversation. How typical.

1) We’ve already established that the Old Testament is in full effect despite the New Testament, in Jesus own words. Therefore, anything the Old Testament commands, it commands to Christians. Every single quote I’ve used counts. Do the ten commandments mean anything to you? If your answer is yes, it is inconsistent to disregard what is written virtually alongside them.

2) Had you actually read my previous post, you’ll notice I already listed passages where this is commanded. Except, technically, rape. That is, if you don’t consider the forced taking of women as plunder as “rape.” These “historical passages” don’t merely describe what was happening. They described the commandments of God, not simply how they were carried out.

3) Re: the question of Darwinistic “interpretation.” This is not a valid question and does not deserve a response. Darwinism is and has always been specific to biology. It is blatantly deceptive to try to apply the term interpretation to determine what he meant when he stated, in very clear terms, what he meant.

4) If you want direct examples of God saying “kill _____,” read Joshua 8 and 1 Kings 14.

Or perhaps you’d like some examples of God doing the dirty work himself? For that, see 2 Samuel 24.

God commanding rape: After commanding the utter slaughter of the Midianites (who did what to Israel, exactly?), check out Numbers 31:17-18. Hint: they weren’t keeping them as pets. If they were interested in slaves, they’d have kept the men alive. Female slaves already have their roles prescribed as sex slaves (see Exodus 21:7-11). Unless you don’t consider forcing a woman into slavery for the purposes of sex as being rape. Before you accuse me of something I’m not doing, I’m preemptively trying to reduce the number of split hairs offered in my direction.

In these cases, it doesn’t matter that Jesus said he was not abolishing the law–these were direct commandments from God. For further reference, look at Psalm 111, which claims everything God does or asks is good. While you’re at it, read some of the works by William of Ockham, who argues that if God commands murder, it’s moral.

—-

5) Yes, there are examples of killing over disagreement. Any time a group believed in a different god, the default response was KILL KILL KILL or ENSLAVE ENSLAVE ENSLAVE (As prescribed by God’s laws in Deuteronomy 20:10-17). While there are instances of “kill or be killed” (as was purportedly the case of Amalek, though theirs was actually a case of revenge for earlier transgressions against Israel), I have not used these as references. Also, the book of Job strongly disputes any sense of mercy. In case you were unaware, Job was a man who was holy. God struck him with disease, leprosy and kills his children as well as inflicting other terrible misfortune–over a bet: whether or not Job will curse him as a result. What an asshole (for clarity’s sake, that’s me calling God an asshole, not calling you an asshole. I wish I didn’t have to take these precautions, but after having words put in my mouth or be misrepresented for the umpteenth time…).

—-

6) Again, you mislabel. I said I came from a conservative Christian background, not that I hold a conservative Christian worldview. Again you’re making it about me, rather than my statements.

—-

7) I’ve chosen my interpretation? One cannot “interpret” things stated plainly. Sorry, your statement was meaningless. It doesn’t take any sort of interpretation to recognize the stupidity in verses like 1 Kings 20:35-36, nor does it take any sort of interpretation to understand the cruelty of biblical laws. I can’t imagine any other interpretation to “kill your teenager if they’re disrespectful” that doesn’t mean “kill your teenager if they’re disrespectful.” Interpretation is a scapegoat people use when someone doesn’t agree with what they believe about the bible, even when verses are presented that directly contradict those beliefs.

—-

8) Re: Laws. Fair enough analogy, but it still doesn’t resolve the issue nor does it pardon it. The old laws are still barbaric, and Jesus says they’re still fine with him. No doubt he advocated a more liberal way of doing things, as evidenced frequently throughout the New Testament. I acknowledge there are commendable things in the bible. All I ask is that you acknowledge there are parts which encourage evil.

—-

9) If my problem is “ignoring half of the scriptures to reinforce (my) bias against religion,” then your problem is obtuse presumptuousness. For instance, I accept that there are good parts of the bible. There have to be for the religion to be perceived as moral by any sensible person in modern society. You, on the other hand, seem content to pretend that the bible consists only of good parts and non-bad parts (due to the scapegoat of interpretation), or that all the admittedly bad parts “don’t count” because you want to believe they don’t count, as evidenced by your quotes from Jesus “two greatest commandments,” even though my argument is supported when he proclaimed that he didn’t come to abolish the Law.

I doubt you’ll address the scripture previously quoted, nor those which I’ve brought up in this response. Judging by the caliber of clarity in your responses, I doubt you will even bother to look them up. Frankly, I don’t think you have a response that doesn’t consist of “you’re misinterpreting,” as if that carried any weight whatsoever. I’ve used the verses in context, or I’ve used verses that can be judged objectively both within and out of context. If you’d actually bothered to read them, you’d have already come to that conclusion.

Finally, if your goal here was to get me to entertain other ideas about the bible or its merits, you should have started by being intellectually honest and admitting its flaws–not simply the alleged flaws of others who “falsely interpret” it.