Ray Comfort

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Counter Responses)
(Removed Valen's preaching counters)
Line 45: Line 45:
 
==Counter Responses==
 
==Counter Responses==
 
* Have you ever told the truth? What does that make you?
 
* Have you ever told the truth? What does that make you?
* The above is a fallacious argument. If I killed someone a year ago, but since then I've not killed anyone, that doesn't make me a "not murderer".
 
 
* 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.
 
* 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.
 
* 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.
 
* 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.
* Yes yes. "Thought Crime" is an electrically charged phrase. But we aren't talking about human crime. We are talking about sin. It's once we take hold of that lustful look, and mull it over and obtain pleasure from it where we are doing wrong. If I have true hatred in my heart, it doesn't detract from hate's destructiveness. So therefore the argument above is also fallacious.
 
 
* 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 an 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.
 
* 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 an 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.
* The counter to the 'counter' above is that God is perfectly holy. The bible says that he who keeps the whole law but violates it on just one point, is guilty of breaking it all. God requires perfection. That's not unjust, it's perfect justice. Pretty nice of Jesus to sacrifice himself so that we can reach God through Him.  He must love us very much.
 
  
 
==External link==
 
==External link==

Revision as of 10:56, 27 August 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, and when Jesus comes again on judgment day, how do you think he's going to treat you?
    • 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?
  • 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 an 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.

External link

  • "The Raytractors", Ray Comfort's Detractors, "Here's a place to critique Ray Comfort without being subject to his rules of censorship. We are a community of mostly atheists and agnostics, but theists are welcome to join. Sign up by emailing MacGyver Jr. - See his profile."
  • Atheist Central, Ray Comfort's weblog (former title: Comfort Food).
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox