Ray Comfort

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Counter Responses)
(Counter Responses: Removing RR's preaching)
Line 44: Line 44:
 
==Counter Responses==
 
==Counter Responses==
 
* Have you ever told the truth? What does that make you? ( has a murderer ever had days he didn't kill? He is still a murderer)
 
* Have you ever told the truth? What does that make you? ( has a murderer ever had days he didn't kill? He is still a murderer)
* What do you call a person who lies? A preacher. (yes preachers are guilty as well as the entire human race. "all have sinned")
+
* What do you call a person who lies? A preacher.  
* Taking the Lord's name in vain to mean cursing is a mistranslation of the [[3rd commandment]]. The more proper translation (seen in many better translations) is takes the name of God in a false oath, or in a vain oath. It is a prohibition against swearing to God falsely, effectively turning the third commandment into grounds on which a trustworthy contract could be made. (look up the word vain)
+
* Taking the Lord's name in vain to mean cursing is a mistranslation of the [[3rd commandment]]. The more proper translation (seen in many better translations) is takes the name of God in a false oath, or in a vain oath. It is a prohibition against swearing to God falsely, effectively turning the third commandment into grounds on which a trustworthy contract could be made.  
* Bearing false witness against your neighbor is a misinterpretation of the [[9th commandment]]. Most systems of government were guilty until proven innocent. One would after an accusation was made be asked to prove his or her innocence or else punished for the act. If a person could prove their innocence their accuser would be guilty of false witness and typically put to death. The act of accusing a person of a crime was a more serious one than today with our "innocent until proven guilty" standard, and the closest analogy would be filing a false police report, rather than lying. (the 10 commandments are Gods Holy standard in which all men will be judged, the 10 commandments show us what sin is, it is a mirror to see we are in transgession of His law. All men are sinners and must come to repentance and accept the only way of salvation which is through Jesus Christ who became the sacrifice for mans sin.)
+
* Bearing false witness against your neighbor is a misinterpretation of the [[9th commandment]]. Most systems of government were guilty until proven innocent. One would after an accusation was made be asked to prove his or her innocence or else punished for the act. If a person could prove their innocence their accuser would be guilty of false witness and typically put to death. The act of accusing a person of a crime was a more serious one than today with our "innocent until proven guilty" standard, and the closest analogy would be filing a false police report, rather than lying.  
* Looking at a woman in lust is a thought crime. Lust isn't a conscious action, and one is to be punished for human nature. (explain that to your wife, "it wasn't a conscience action dear!")
+
* Looking at a woman in lust is a thought crime. Lust isn't a conscious action, and one is to be punished for human nature.  
* Comfort will seize any admission of imperfection to condemn his interlocutor: stealing a piece of candy from a store when one was a child counts as a "yes" answer to "Have you ever stolen anything?". Comfort's god considers this equivalent to robbing a bank. Asked for justification of the claim that stealing a stick of gum when you were two is equal to robbing a bank, Comfort offers that because the crime is against in infinite God it demands an infinite punishment. Comfort's God is not only unjust, he also blames the victims and accords punishments depending on the victim rather than crimes. (should God allow thieves and murders to run rampant in His Heaven? It wouldn't be Heaven would it? Man stepped out of the garden of eden and into a world of sin, after being warned. God in His love and mercy made a way to return to an even better world than eden was..Heaven. By providing a sacrifice, which He Himself became that sacrifice. Each man and woman has to make the decision as to where they will spend eternity.RR)( the problem with this argument is that the one making the counter response, does not understand the purpose of the 10 commandments, or the Grace of God. The bible says to offend even the least of the commandments is to break them all. We were born under the curse of sin and we choose to sin. The bible says that even our "rightousness is as filthy rags", the best we can do will never earn a place in Heaven, we are sinners by birth. If there were another way, Christ would not have went to  the cross. It is through the gift of salvation that we can be forgiven and promised eternity in heaven. RR)
+
* Comfort will seize any admission of imperfection to condemn his interlocutor: stealing a piece of candy from a store when one was a child counts as a "yes" answer to "Have you ever stolen anything?". Comfort's god considers this equivalent to robbing a bank. Asked for justification of the claim that stealing a stick of gum when you were two is equal to robbing a bank, Comfort offers that because the crime is against in infinite God it demands an infinite punishment. Comfort's God is not only unjust, he also blames the victims and accords punishments depending on the victim rather than crimes.  
 
+
  
 
[[Category:Christian apologists|Comfort, Ray]]
 
[[Category:Christian apologists|Comfort, Ray]]

Revision as of 23:15, 16 February 2008

Ray Comfort

Ray Comfort is a New Zealand Christian apologist who co-hosts The Way of the Master radio show.

Contents

Favorite arguments

Ray Comfort has appeared on many a freethinking radio show. Some arguments come up time and time again.

The Watchmaker Argument

He will usually say something along the lines of "If I see a watch, it must have been made by a watchmaker, a loaf of bread by a baker, a building by an engineer, a creation by a creator."

This is the argument from design.

The Banana Argument

Until recently, the banana argument was, according to Comfort, "the Atheist's Worst Nightmare". However, he conceded the argument on the Hellbound Alleee show.

Are you a good person?

This argument uses the appeal to emotion. He asks the atheist or unbeliever a set of questions.

  • Have you ever told a lie?
    • Well yes, everybody at some point...
      • What are you called if you tell a lie?
        • A liar.
  • Have you ever stolen anything, regardless of its value?
    • A little thing when I was young.
      • What do you call a person who steals?
        • A thief.
  • Jesus said that anybody who looked at a women in lust is guilty of adultery in his heart. Have you ever looked at a woman with lust?
    • Well, yeah.
  • Have you ever used God's name in vain?
    • Yes.
      • You've taken the name of the God who gave you life in as a cuss word and that's called blasphemy.
  • So, by your own admission, you are a lying, thieving, adulterous, blasphemer. Would you be innocent or guilty in the day of judgment, if God judged you by the 10 commandments?
    • Would you go to heaven or hell?
  • If you were flying on a plane and knew it was going to crash and you had a parachute under your seat? What would you do?
    • Put it on.
      • You wouldn't just believe in it, you'd put it on.
        • Jesus is that parachute.

Counter Responses

  • Have you ever told the truth? What does that make you? ( has a murderer ever had days he didn't kill? He is still a murderer)
  • What do you call a person who lies? A preacher.
  • Taking the Lord's name in vain to mean cursing is a mistranslation of the 3rd commandment. The more proper translation (seen in many better translations) is takes the name of God in a false oath, or in a vain oath. It is a prohibition against swearing to God falsely, effectively turning the third commandment into grounds on which a trustworthy contract could be made.
  • Bearing false witness against your neighbor is a misinterpretation of the 9th commandment. Most systems of government were guilty until proven innocent. One would after an accusation was made be asked to prove his or her innocence or else punished for the act. If a person could prove their innocence their accuser would be guilty of false witness and typically put to death. The act of accusing a person of a crime was a more serious one than today with our "innocent until proven guilty" standard, and the closest analogy would be filing a false police report, rather than lying.
  • Looking at a woman in lust is a thought crime. Lust isn't a conscious action, and one is to be punished for human nature.
  • Comfort will seize any admission of imperfection to condemn his interlocutor: stealing a piece of candy from a store when one was a child counts as a "yes" answer to "Have you ever stolen anything?". Comfort's god considers this equivalent to robbing a bank. Asked for justification of the claim that stealing a stick of gum when you were two is equal to robbing a bank, Comfort offers that because the crime is against in infinite God it demands an infinite punishment. Comfort's God is not only unjust, he also blames the victims and accords punishments depending on the victim rather than crimes.
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox