An Invitation to a Blog

Hello all!Ray Comfort, the infamous evangelist who debated the Rational Response Squad a few months ago on Dateline, has opened his own blog complete with a Comments section. He writes on the blog almost every day, and people have a chance to argue about what he writes (which usually centers on evolution and atheism). Ray also takes an active part in the debate. Here's the site: Words of Comfort -- Ray Comfort's Blog.There are a few evolutionists there like myself who attempt to debate with the creationists. However, I believe that some people in this forum could contribute to the discussion in a better way than I can. Anybody who wants to join is welcome to come over.I used to read Ray Comfort's books and listen to his sermons; I believed every word that he said or wrote. After seeing science and religion in a different light, it's nice to be able to confront him (in a polite way, of course).Thanks!

So I go to the blog and read the Friday, January 4, 2008, entry, Wise Words From Richard Dawkins, and I'm preparing my response in my mind as I read, and I get to the end and find this: Does this mean that that blog entry is no longer accepting comments? Or is it a request to not send email directly to Ray?If he's not accepting comments on that blog entry anymore then I suggest we comment on it here. I can move the thread to the evolution forum.--Percy

so... many... pratts... brain.... exploding....and did he SERIOUSLY just cite stephen jay gould AND richard dawkins for creationism? wtf.edit: i posted. let's see if he lets it through.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

Hey Percy, He usually screened our comments before posting them, and until now he's been very accomodating; as long as the post didn't have a curse word, it was usually posted without edits, no matter how much the post disagreed with his blog entry.But now, for whatever reason, he says that he's tired of the evolution debate. Any comment that attempts to argue with his ridiculous blog entry will not be posted in the Comments section. To me, it seems like he's attempting to shut down the arguments and then proclaim himself the victor (which is what many Christians on the site immediately started proclaiming).It's not very honest, and it's quite infuriating. Yeah, sounds good to me.Still, I just wish that this guy would shut up. I don't mind people questioning science or whatever, but Ray writes so many ridiculous things that it just drives me insane.Whatever, though. It's his blog and he can do what he wants. I'll keep checking it, though, to see if he comes around.

Yes, I feel exactly the same way. There's not an excuse for citing evolutionists to somehow disprove evolution.It's almost funny: on page 127 of the The God Delusion, Dawkins writes how creationists misrepresent the Cambrian over and over and over, without ever correcting themselves. I cited this passage for Ray, but, incidently, that was when he disabled comments concerning evolution.Yeah, it's almost funny, if it wasn't so sad. Read the comments; see how people listen to this guy. It's frustrating.

Any idea how long it usually takes?I posted a completely inoffensive comment last night and it has yet to appear.I simply provided support for your assertion that Einstein believed in Spinoza's god by posting 3 references.Edited by molbiogirl, : sp

holy crap he posted my comment.and look at all the typos! awesome.edit: and here it is:

quote:

---

mr. comfort,

​

do you not realize how incredibly dishonest it is to attempt to quote someone like stephen jay gould or richard dawkins in support of creationism? both have written at least a half dozen very lengthy books on [the] subject of evolution, and they are both very much on the "pro" side. to quote dawkins on the cambrian explosion, but not the bit that follows is about like quoting the bible to say "there is no god." clearly, the context matters.

​

stephen jay gould, i might understand out of ignorance of his books... but how can anyone think for one second that the author of "the god delusion" is advocating creationism? i think not!

​

when, exactly, did it become ok for [a] christian to bear false witness? this is not what my copy of the bible says.

---

Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

if the references contain links, your comment will not be posted. i think they have a very strict screening scipt that automatically weeds out message with links, lest they be spam.otherwise, porn-spamming would be a real hoot.

---

Whoops. Double postEdited by taylor_31, : No reason given.

found here

quote:

---

abraham... let's look at that a little more closely. it says that god told abraham to — , —— or ha-alehu sham l'olah. literally, "raise him up for a burnt offering" or "bring him to be a burnt offering" "offer" isn't exactly the right word in the sense of "hey, you want this?" the implication of the sentance is that isaac will be a sacrifice. the word itself means to "lift up" or "bring" and is the same word used when god brings the plagues upon egypt. and the "burnt offering" part is the rather standard sacrifice one can read all about in the books of exodus and leviticus.

​

it's really the same as any other offering -- done of a willing heart, not god's demand. the test was of abraham's heart, not his obedience. i'll refrain from any comment on interpretation, but you do have to get the sense of the words right before you can examine the meaning of the text.

---

my forthcoming response, once it gets through the filters:

quote:

---

<< Could you explain the above. I can't seem to separate the two. Thanks. >>

​

yes, i would be happy to.

​

You gave me to understand that
You do not desire sacrifice and meal offering;
You do not ask for burnt offering and sin offering.
Then I said,
'See, I will bring a scroll recounting what befell me.'
To do what pleases You, my God, is my desire
Your teaching is in my inmost parts.
(psalm 40:7-9)

​

our god is a merciful and loving god. he is not a wrathful god, concerned about the letter of his law. to prove this to us, he gave his only begotten son, who died on our behalf. the point of the law and of sacrifices is not appease a god who desires blood, but to demonstrate a willing and giving heart. god isn't asking for our blind obedience, and when we mess up, our animals (or our sons). he's asking that we love him, and honor him. it is not right to simply follow the law, one must have a heart that is freely given to god. this what jesus taught us, to put our hearts in the right place. and this is why paul says that no man can be justified by the law alone.

​

the miracle of salvation by christ is that god has said the heart was enough, and there was no need for further sacrifice. this is, in effect, what we see with abraham. the sacrifice itself was not necessary. similarly, we do not have to lay down our lives, either.

---

maybe i'll blow his mind with the backwards interpretation next. we'll see...Edited by arachnophilia, : formatting

---

It usually doesn't take very long; perhaps a day at most. I did see your post, and thanks for the support! Sometimes I wonder if he even listens, though.Lately he's posted a load of crap about his personal doctrines and how most of America's Christians are not "real" converts. I might post something tomorrow in reply if I can.

i'm thinking of responding to that. i'll have to be very careful. but brenna recently potmed me for a similar topic here, so...i'm thinking it might be fun to invite him here. what do you guys think?

---

Do it!

Hey everybody,Sorry if Ray's blog has been a little disappointing. It's still a great opportunity to communicate with him, but it hasn't been the experience that I hoped it would be.I didn't think he'd stop the science debate so quickly, especially when there were several of us adamantly contesting his claims. Also, he usually replies in maddeningly short sentences that completely miss the point of the argument. He also has has an army of like-minded Christians who support him in everything he writes; they can gang up quickly.It's a bit frustrating. Still, I'm going to keep posting and see if I can continue any sort of dialogue, even if I embarrass myself.

Heh, I think that would be a lot of fun. I don't see how we could possibly persuade him to visit, however; I'm sure he receives similar invitations all the time.But if he really is so confident about his beliefs, what does he have to lose?