Ray Comfort to debate atheists

I simply have to ask - is this for real? It seems like a parody of creationism. I don't know Brother Comfort so can't tell if this is him being serious, or a "take-off" on him.

I admit that I found myself laughing at it.

 

I think this makes my point very well.

 

And I am a young earth, 6 - 24 hour days creationist.

 

Oh, OK.

I disagree strongly that Comfort does any "good." His television show succeeds in only one thing: making Christians look about as open, loving, and Christlike as Hamas.

I find the idea of poking a camera in someone's face and condemning them to Hell on purely legalistic terms most foolish. I find using a banana as "proof" of God foolish. Thus, my language describing the person.

If I have offended you, I apologize. Or, if you prefer KJV language, I doth apologizeth from my bowels of compassion.

 

Oh, yes. It is.

 

My comments on YouTube

If this is genuine, how can he be taken seriously. That video is absurd, no wonder they are laughing at us.

 

The show that came from is startlingly simplistic, and attacks people from a legalistic, hyperfundamentalist position. Comfort ignores the fact that the edible banana is a cultivated crop, but that isn't as bad as the fact that, rather than use logic and an approach of systematic apologetics, he simply wants to make himself look smart.

 

I don't think I have ever seen a more embarrassing defence of creationism in my life. Is this characteristic of his entire ministry?

In case you can't tell I am in shock over this.

 

"Bypassing the intellect" is a consistent theme of his and his Left Behind cohorts' ministry -->http://wayofthemaster.com/

 

As well you should be. I'm not a Young Earth Creationist, but I could, very quickly, think of several better defenses for it than a banana.

As far as this being "typical," the only times I've seen his show (and, if this is any indication, it's on TBN, so that's at least two strikes against it to begin with), he and KC have been on the street, confronting people not with the Gospel, but with how sinful they are and that they are going to Hell.

I've come to consider the "hey, you, you;re going to Hell" approach to evangelism an utterly lazy and selfcentered way to evangelize. The whole banana thing fits right in to that mindset, in my estimation.

But don't let him get you down. Though you and I disagree on Young Earth Creationism, we both know that he is not typical of all Young Earthers.

 

I am not a Greek scholar, but I can read. The following sources provide a fairly comprehensive exegesis of the word translated “fool” in Matthew 5:22. Note that in each case use of the word has wider application than “heart and character”.

morós [foolish],
moraín? [to make foolish],
moría [foolishness],
morología [foolish talk]


A. The Group in Classical Greek.
morós and cognates denote deficiency, e.g., physical sloth, but more especially mental dullness. We find such varied uses as for insipid foods, animals that are sluggish in winter, or people suffering from fatigue. With a human reference the main use is psychological. What is meant is a weakness of understanding or judgment, sometimes through stupidity, sometimes through confusion, but always demanding censure. Along with a more rationalistic view, the Greeks suggest at times that folly of this nature is a fate.

—Theological Dictionary of the New Testament - Abridged Edition

D. The Concept of Folly in the NT.


2. “Fool” as an Insult. Matt. 5:22 raises the question what is meant by morós in this context and why its use as an insult merits such severe condemnation. Exegesis has suggested that what the term implies is either recalcitrance, ungodliness, the insulting of the righteous as fools, or simple stupidity. In context, anger relates to the disposition, the charge of empty-headedness is a charge of frivolity, and the charge of folly implies a lack of capacity for right thought or action. But since Jesus is hardly making casuistical distinctions, the two latter terms are to be seen as explanatory additions to the saying about anger. Anger and terms of abuse are closely related (cf. Jms. 1:19) and equally reprehensible. Since there is no real crescendo in the passage, since the two terms of abuse are virtually synonymous, and since the first court (krísis) comprises the supreme human and ultimate divine judgment, what we have is a threefold statement which achieves its effect by repetition. In the world of Jesus injury by words is of the utmost seriousness. Where there is anger and vilification, Jesus sees that the true problem is that there is no fellowship (cf. his own condemnation of the scribes and Pharisees as fools and blind in Matt. 23:17). Hence he is not just issuing a moral warning against anger and abuse but establishing by commitment to himself the true fellowship which excludes anger and the insults that express it.



[G. BERTRAM, IV, 832–47]

—Theological Dictionary of the New Testament - Abridged Edition

Usage Number: A-3

Part Of Speech: Adjective

Strong's Number: <G3474>

Original Word: moros

Usage Notes: primarily denotes "dull, sluggish" (from a root muh---, "to be silly"); hence, "stupid, foolish;" it is used (a) of persons, Matt. 5:22, "Thou fool;" here the word means morally worthless, a scoundrel, a more serious reproach than "Raca;" the latter scorns a man's mind and calls him stupid; moros scorns his heart and character; hence the Lord's more severe condemnation; in Matt. 7:26, "a foolish man;" Matt. 23:17, 19, "fools;" Matt. 25:2, 3, 8, "foolish;" in 1 Cor. 3:18, "a fool;" the Apostle Paul uses it of himself and his fellow-workers, in 1 Cor. 4:10, "fools" (i.e., in the eyes of opponents); (b) of things, 2 Tim. 2:23, "foolish and ignorant questionings;" so Titus 3:9; in 1 Cor. 1:25, "the foolishness of God," not moria, "foolishness" as a personal quality (see C, No. 1), but adjectivally, that which is considered by the ignorant as a "foolish" policy or mode of dealing, lit., "the foolish (thing);" so in ver. 1 Cor. 1:27, "the foolish (things) of the world."

—Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words

I stand by my original post. No Christian should call another Christian fool, whether using it in today's context or in the context, which according to these three recognized authorities, was far more degrading than you would have us believe.

 

hello, marking place

 

The Way of the Master is a show for Christians, to help them learn to share their faith. I don't think it's "a strike against it" because it's shown on a station that is viewed mainly by Christians. It's a "teaching" show for Christians, so it wouldn't make much sense to air it on HBO or FX.

Actually, they do "confront" people with the Gospel, AFTER their hearts are humbled through the use of God's Law (Which is exactly what the Law was given for). It's the same thing Jesus did....Law to the proud, Grace to the humble.

Any one particular Way of the Master show is not an entire teaching unto itself.....all the shows build upon one another. In other words, I can understand how you can get the wrong impression if you happen to see only one or two episodes of The Way of the Master. To really understand where they're coming from, and before you wrongly judge them, I recommend you go to www.freecdtracts.com, click on "Free Evangelism Training" on the left side of the page, then click on "Way of the Master". Then, watch a few episodes of the show, beginning with the first one called "The Firefighter". I also highly recommend reading the book, The Way of the Master, and spending more than just a couple of minutes at their website, www.wayofthemaster.com.

I'm just afraid that many people are catching a few minutes of one of their shows, seeing them interview people on the street, and then getting the impression that all they do is run around telling everybody they're going to hell.

Read the book, watch a few episodes of The Way of the Master beginning with the first episode.....and then make your decision and your judgments.

 

Anyone who thinks that stupid banana thing is useful evangelism tool is being very foolish, not sure that makes them a fool, but it is very, very close.

I watched a video. Cameron and Comfort come off as arrogant know it all's, willing to insult a person's intelligence with a message other then the Gospel. Also, didn't like his answer about eternal security. Sort of a "yes, but" answer. Instead we are told to order a CD or DVD to better understand where he is coming from. A simple yes or no will do nicely thank you very much.

 

It amazes me that so many professing Christians on this board are willing to villify other professing Christians, while at the same time indirectly supporting those who would deny the basic premises of our faith. Cameron and Comfort are called arrogant, idiots, fools etc., while the atheist defenders are congratulated for their incisive comments. Go figure.

 

Well if the shoe fits.....

I don't remember anyone congratulating those not believing in the Christian faith

 

I met Mr. Comfort and Mr. Cameron a few years ago at a conference in Cleveland when Mr. Cameron was beginning his speaking ministry. I was having a mild kidney stone attack (if that's not oxymoronic) I left the auditorium and was walking around outside the halls all over the place (as you do when you're in kidney stone pain). I happened to pass by Mr. Comfort down a hall I probably shouldn't have been down. He stopped and was very concerned for my health as he could tell I was in a tremendous amount of pain. Long story short, Mr. Comfort spent about 20 minutes with me, helping me, despite the fact that he was to be in another place selling his books/materials (and later I discovered was to be on a TBN broadcast).

I can't speak to the totality of Ray Comfort's ministry because I've only seen him once and I don't watch his program because I'm allergic to TBN. However, his personal demonstration of caring spoke loudly to me.

I guess I should apologize for interrupting your nah-nah-nah-nah-boo-boo festival. I'll leave so you can continue. :laugh:

 

As the apostle Paul said,
1 Cor 9
22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

There are different methods for different people. A man in our church is a truck driver and former marine. He witnesses everywhere he goes and is very agressive in his delivery. This type of witnessing works well when dealing with some of the truck drivers he encounters in his travels, but if he were to try to win me with that kind of agressiveness, I would tell him to back off and probably avoid him from that time on.
Maybe WOTM is not appealing to some, but for others it works. I don't think there is only one way to bring the gospel. It depends on who you're dealing with. I appreciate their efforts and find their teachings to be Biblically solid.

 

I have recently finished watching the whole "Way of the Master" series, and it is very good! He advocates appealing to people's conscience, instead of the intellect, and the basis for this is that "the carnal mind is at enmity against God", but the "conscience" is where people deep down inside sense God. We realize this, but too often keep going for the head, on the basis that "Yo know it's true, but are just denying it". But it's not the head thatr lnws it's true, but is rather in blindness. It;s the conscience.
I myself have been feeling discouraged lately, because even with people who already claim to believe God and the Bible, we have all these debates right here, and people's minds are made up, and no amount of reason or scripture in its correct context will sway them. Then, when you enter the whole Intelligent Design issue outside of the Christian debates you really see how made up the nonChristian world's mind is, and how homosexuality they have just decided is normal and to be protected and given all the rights of any other "persecuted group".
But their approach is one that would seem to have more potential than anything else we have been trying. It is for one thing, more Bible based.

So it seem now, in an age where many of our more outspoken preachers are giving out total fluff (prosperity, self-improvement, or charismatic signs and wonders), and the more serious conservatives on the other end just continue complaining about the latest secular developments, these two are really standing up for Christ, with a clear no nonsese approach. I don't know how effective it will be (as society seems to have degenerated so far into rejection of God), but it's nice to know someone is going forth with the true Gospel regardless.

Yet I see people here coming down so hard on them. Their approach is much better than old-line fundamentalist style Christians who just try to shout Hell at everyone (without even explaining WHY people deserve Hell, which is precisely what Cameron and Comfort point out; remember the airplane analogy?), and then bash society and evolution with mean spirited "You all are rebelling against us and destroying our godly society, causing God to judge the nation with catastrophes" rhetoric.

The banana thing was pretty bad; however. I was so embarrased when I watched it on his how weeks ago. (The banana is shaped specifically for human use). Thoughm we could make an argument for that with design, but that won't exlain all the other foods that are harder to eat.
(Next to that video on Youtube, there was also one from someone else about peanut butter. Which ministry was that from?

I also had a problem with them really trying to imply that anyone not bold enough to witness like them at any opportunity they have might not be saved themselves. However, he did use Edwards and/or Spurgeon and others to back that up, and many people still respect them.

Also, from there, the notion that this "key" (the Law) was used properly for centuries, and then only in the last century discarded. While many will agree with that; I think the Law was not used correctly; but was used to wrongly try to scare people into "belief" and submission, and this going back to people like Edwards. This is what led more than anything else to the softening of preaching many people complain of. Comfort and Cameron did say that you should not try to scare people with Hell, but I don't see how they fail to realize how that was in fact abused so much in the past.

Actually, their chief argument is the apparent lack of "perfect" order, they see as disproving God. Like the "design" of the eye is one of our most heralded arguments, but then they will point out that a group of nerves actually blocks part of our view, and why would God place it like that if He designed it. I find stuff like that hard to answer.

 

Lordship Salvation is much more than a yes or no answer...what he holds to. While I don't agree with that soteriology, the man has a real love for christ.