Tuesday, March 10, 2009

More comments and an apology from an atheist

Sorry for the delays in my responses. I've been out of the state for speaking engagements.

Logic Lad said, "Trish, i have only been reading Ray's blog for a little while and i have to support G.E.'s point here, Ray insists on using straw man fallacies and clearly incorrect statements in his posts, he even repeats the same statements after he has been corrected, once could be a mistake but twice is deliberate, deliberatly saying something you know to be false in lieing."

I'm not sure what he repeats or where he uses strawman fallacies but I'm sure if he is in the wrong about something he would correct it. I know Ray. And I know that he cares about truth and he cares (as do I) where you will spend all eternity. Ray doesn’t try to come to you with persuasive speech—he just comes with Gospel truth.

Logic Lad said, "I am sure he is completly accurate in his quoting of scripture, however that is not what GE is talking about. besides i am sure there is something in the bible about the devil using scripture to mislead, i am not suggesting that Ray is evil, arrogant and opininated perhaps but not evil, but simplt because he can quote scripture does not mean that he always tells the truth."

True. It is very important to quote scripture accurately and in its full context and to the best of my knowledge Ray does that. So I'm sorry I'm not quite sure what he would be lying about. He is a simple man, just using scripture. Perhaps you’re argument is with scripture and not Ray.

Logic Lad said, "Again with this prove that x is false, you are making, or supporting an extraordinary claim, it is for you to display evidence that it is true, untill then i will continue to act in all ways as if it is false, otherwise we are stuck back or Bertrands Teapot."

I have made my arguments in past posts. I have stated in previous posts that it is impossible for you to reason and have an intelligible conversation with out hypocritically borrowing from the biblical worldview in order to make sense of your own. Remember, you have to assert that there is a God in order to deny one. And don’t forget that Christ is the only answer to your problem with sin. He is the only one that can present you blameless before God. Listen to your conscience. You know you have broken the 10 commandments. You have lied. I’m sure you have looked with lust. James 2:10 says, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it." That means you are in deep trouble when you stand before God on judgment day--when you will be judged according to your works.

For Maxx, Thanks for adding the link to Penn's video. Maxx said, "To me, that is what Trish was explaining to G.E. as why she must warn him of the wrath of God"

Yes. I posted his quote because it seemed to me that Penn (being an atheist) sees the importance and understands whey the Christian would be compelled to share their faith. And he can’t understand why the Christian wouldn’t warn people if he believes they are going to hell. I do this because I am compelled to. I do this because the bible says that if sinners don't repent and cling to Christ they will perish. I do this because I was blind and now I see. The world makes total sense to me now. God's fingerprints are everywhere. In the snowflake that falls from the sky. In the child that is born and breaths for the first time. I see His fingerprints when I'm tempted to sin and I'm convicted by His Spirit. I do what I do because I've come to realize that Christ is the only one who can bring peace between man and God. That Christ is the only one that can make you hunger and thirst for righteousness. Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Christ is the only one who can reconcile us to God.

“Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.” Col 1:21-23

When I read about the dead being judged it compels me to action:

"Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." Rev 20: 11-15

Logic Lad said, “I apologise for making it look like i was accusing Trish of lieing, having carefully reread her origianl post it is clear what her meaning is. I shall take away the lesson that i should really read what is written. Having watched the video i fully appreciate the sentiment that if you believe then you have to do as much as you can to help those you percieve as lost. I will try to bare this in mind when addressing future posts. I understand why you feel the need to convert people, however that does not mean that i have to agree with you..."

Thanks, Logic Lad. I understand.

Logic Lad continues, "...I believe that religion leads society into horrible dark places, what would it say of me if i did not try to protect others from it?”

You’re right. Religion does. But Christianity doesn’t. The God of Christianity is just and true, kind and loving. Everything He does is right.

“He who would love life
And see good days,
Let him refrain his tongue from evil,
And his lips from speaking deceit.
Let him turn away from evil and do good;
Let him seek peace and pursue it.
For the eyes of the LORD are on the righteous,
And His ears are open to their prayers;
But the face of the LORD is against those who do evil.” (1 Peter 3:10-12)

Get Educated said, "He might even mislead my reading by interpreting the Bible the wrong way."

True. Ray is just a man. He is not perfect nor does he claim to be. I'm not perfect either--just forgiven by a good God. Here's what I suggest...if you can't read his bible and you won't take me up on the offer for a free copy, then perhaps you would purchase a bible with no commentary. You can also go to BibleGateway.com and read the entirety of the Bible online. Could I send you one without commentary? Would you read it??

Get Educated said, "...strawman. Something made to "appear" like the right thing, but that is much easier to attack and defeat (like fighting against a man made of straw)."

I'm very familiar with this type of argument. Here's my question to you, is the biblical account regarding man being created by God and being made male and female, not reliable? The text in Genesis 1:27 says, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." I believe this. I take this account as a literal account. As an accurate account. As one that is true. There are many theists that have gone ahead and said, “Well, evolution is a fine theory, but God must have created it.” But I reject this. The Bible doesn’t teach this. And if we can tamper, disregard and twist the very first chapter of the Bible then we might as well disregard, tamper and twist the rest of the Bible.

Belief in evolutionary theory is a matter of sheer faith. And dogmatic belief in any naturalistic theory is no more “scientific” than any other kind of religious faith. Evolution is a philosophy.

Did you hear about Michael Ruse? He's an evolutionist who testified in the 1980's at the Arkansas creationism trial (McLean v. Arkansas). During the trial, he claimed that creationism is a religion because it is grounded in unproven philosophical assumptions. But Darwinism is a science, he said, "because it requires no philosophical or religious presuppositions". Ruse has since admitted that he was wrong, and he now acknowledges that evolution “is metaphysically based”—grounded in unproven beliefs that are no more “scientific” than the set of beliefs on which creationism is based. See Tom Woodward, “Ruse Gives Away the Store: Admits Evolution Is a Philosophy” on the “Origins” Web site.

G.E. said, "So, even if you were truly able to convince me that "the Bible does not lie", Ray does. So, if by implication of the Bible not lying evolution were false, then it would be false. Yet, it would still not be the same as the strawman Ray talks about."

What matters here is that the Word of God is true. Ray is just human and so am I. We are not perfect. But "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.” Prov 30:5. God's word is reliable and trust worthy. He can be in error about things, as can I, but if he is giving you scripture…then your argument is with scripture and not with Ray. Again, we can't convince you about this...we can only plead with you and say look into the mirror of the 10 commandments and see how you measure up. You are guilty. You need the only one who can present you blameless to God, namely...Christ!

55 comments:

Reynold said...

I'm not sure what he repeats or where he uses strawman fallacies but I'm sure if he is in the wrong about something he would correct it. I know Ray. And I know that he cares about truth and he cares (as do I) where you will spend all eternity. Ray doesn’t try to come to you with persuasive speech—he just comes with Gospel truth.
Wrong.

Ray many times has been corrected on his blog, but he refused to change.

Examples all from Ray's blog:
here

here

here

Those are just from the times that I caught him.

If you really want a bunch of examples of this, go to Ray's blog, type in "evolution" in the search function at the top of the page there, and look at his posts, then look at the comments he gets where he gets corrected. The posts by Steven J are among the more educational.

If we keep catching you people lying about stuff that we can check up on, why are we expected to take your word for it when it comes to things we can't check up on?

Logic Lad said...

Trish

I am not trying to be sarcastic but have you actually read the comments on Athiest Central? Many people have shown where Ray as used any number of Strawmen to 'prove' evaloution false, I am not a biologist and I can see where his arguments are clearly wrong. He has been corrected on these points and he has not only failed to accept his error, he goes on to repeat them ad nauseam. telling a know falsehood is lieing, i am afraid if the shoe fits.....


My point was that just because Ray can quote scripture does not mean that i have to blieve a single word that comes out of his keyboard, indeed based on what i have read i am inclined to treat anything he says with a healthy scepticism. There is plenty of scripture i have a problem with, mostly the parts where the apprently perfect and benevloent god is being an immoral, cruel tyrant.

I do not have to assert there is a god, perhaps this is the nub of the problem here, I don't belive i don't deny. I don't need to take a single thing which is unique to a christian world view to make sense of the universe. Please tell me what you think christian philosophy i am borrowing from? You still havn't addressed The teapot question?

Trish said 'Religion does. But Christianity doesn’t'

are you saying the christianity is not a religion? it certainly has all the hallmarks of and it is the blind obiediance and delegating of morallity that is the problem with religion, christianity has all of that.


Trish said '
is the biblical account regarding man being created by God and being made male and female, not reliable?'

in a word no

Trish said 'And if we can tamper, disregard and twist the very first chapter of the Bible then we might as well disregard, tamper and twist the rest of the Bible.'

well we know that the early church did just this, making edits and choosing which books to include in the official version, so man has been tampering with that text almost since it's creation.


Trish said 'Did you hear about Michael Ruse?'

I am not familiar with his works, though he sounds intersting, but what is your point? even if this announcment actaully means that he thinks the evoloution is a faith, he is entitled to his opinion. If Ray suddenly decieded to leave the church would that prove the athiestic point of view?

ExPatMatt said...

Trish,

First time commenter here.

Are you under the impression that Ray only blogs about scripture?

I can assure that at least 50% of his blog postings are about Ray's version of science - and every single one contains at least one falsehood/misrepresentation/strawman etc.

As has been said, nobody has a problem with a Christian professing his faith, preaching the Gospel or telling unbelievers that they're destined for Hell if they don't repent. That's all fine and dandy and we'll discuss theology 'til the cows come home.

But Ray strays outside of his area of expertise and, not only blogs about, but writes books about evolution which contain demonstrable lies.

Seriously. Bare. Faced. Lies.

The continual lack of reproach by Ray's fellow Christians does not paint Christianity in a good light. It makes you all look like a bunch of sycophants, if I'm entirely honest.

For example, Ray has repeatedly claimed that Richard Dawkins believes that life on Earth was seeded by aliens.

To you think he (Ray) is telling the truth, or not?

Regards,

Matt

stranger.strange.land said...

Reynold and Logic.

You speak of the many "corrections" as if they are the final authoritative word on what is being discussed. Can you even allow for the possibility that Ray does read and understand them, but just doesn't buy it.

Many times I myself have corrected Reynold and others at AC on their erroneous understanding of Bible passages and Christian doctrine. I can't recall any of my explainations ever having been accepted.

It would be difficult to count the number of times atheists have set up and attacked straw men, at AC. Not once do I remember any of them making a retraction after their fallacy has been pointed out and corrected.

Is what is sauce for the goose not also sauce for the gander?

Craig B.

Reynold said...

Logic Lad pretty much deals with the point you were trying to make with Michael Ruse. He is just one guy, and he's been misquoted and his views distorted before by religionists.

The incident you describe sounds similar to what happened when he wrote How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.

Note that the date is later than the date where he "gave away the store" according to Woodward who takes one person's opinion and applies it to the entire field.

This means that this article that I'm about to talk about is probably more in line with Ruse's feelings than that published by Woodward and not out of date.

The creationists seized this article but they left out the context by ignoring what Ruse said in the last two paragraphs of it.

He was complaining that some people were using evolution to set up a whole new way of thinking, with morals and all instead of just leaving it as the good science it is.

He said in those paragraphs that evolution is "wonderful science" and it should be left as such.

I daresay that pretty much every biologist (or, as the ID people like to call them to make biology seem more cult-like "Darwinists") would agree.

The fact that the religionists like the ID people and Woodward always refer to evolutionary biologists as "Darwinists" is telling: they ignore the fact that biology has progressed, built upon, and corrected what Darwin originally thought of. Evolutionary biologists (NOT "Darwinists") are not reluctant to change Darwin's original theory when new evidence comes along. There are many things about genetics etc. that Darwin did not know about.

Check the PZ Myers vs. Geoffrey Simmons debate on evolution from google. Find the debate on the AM980 KKMS radio site:

www dot kkms dot com/blogs/JeffandLee/11566451/

Myers gives some examples of where Darwin was wrong. Does that sound like something a religious "Darwinist" would do as opposed to what a religious christian would do?

Reynold said...

You speak of the many "corrections" as if they are the final authoritative word on what is being discussed. Can you even allow for the possibility that Ray does read and understand them, but just doesn't buy it.
Easy. He never refutes the corrections and says "this is why it's wrong..." He just goes on as if the corrections were never made in the first place, and then repeats the same "mistakes" over and over.

Many times I myself have corrected Reynold and others at AC on their erroneous understanding of Bible passages and Christian doctrine. I can't recall any of my explainations ever having been accepted.
Examples please. I remember having to explain the bible to one of you people before at least once, dealing with the "transfiguration"
here, and here, all on Ray's blog.

It would be difficult to count the number of times atheists have set up and attacked straw men, at AC. Not once do I remember any of them making a retraction after their fallacy has been pointed out and corrected.
Examples please.

Jorgon Gorgon said...

"Remember, you have to assert that there is a God in order to deny one."

Incorrect. You are the one that asserts it.

The rest of it has been taken apart by the commenters above.

Jorgon Gorgon said...

"Remember, you have to assert that there is a God in order to deny one."

No; you are the one making an assertion as to His existence. All I am doing is denying the validity of such an assertion and I am in no way committed to accepting it at all.

As far as Ray is concerned: perhaps he just "deesn't buy it" (in stranger's words); if so, he is obliged to provide a rebuttal to the arguments made against his position rather than just ignoring them and hoping they would go away. But in any case, he makes such elementary mistakes regarding both evolutionary theory and observations that we are completely justified in dismissing his arguments as "not even wrong'. He simply does not appear to know what he is talking about on the subject of science in general and biology in particular.

Logic Lad said...

Stranger

Fair comment about the strawmen, i have seen many examples of this from both sides and both sides are guilty of ignoring the other, however this post was specifically about Ray and his inabillity to argue in good faith, remain constant and be prepared to accept that other people may know more than him. The fact that other people do the same does not mean that we should give Ray a pass, any more than i would anyone i saw guilty of the above actions.

If someone corrects my facts I either do more research or ask for a citation, but i will not just ignore the statement, unless it is plainly and obviously false.

I will echo Jorgon, if Ray can substantiate his claims about evolution and science in general then he should do so, if he can refute the facts of any of the posters at his blog, with evidence, he should do so, If he cannot do either of these things he should accept that some aspects of his opinions are either unverifiable, and hence his opinion is no more valid than anyone elses or just plain wrong.

I appreciate that a lot of things come up on blogs like this and so certain threads will get dropped, however it would seem very few of the questions posed by the athiests here actually get answered. I am still waiting for answers on the teapot question, what it is felt i have to take from christianity to build my world view and any sort of rebuttal to the fact the bible was written, edited and re edited by many men over the ages, hence how can it still be the true word of god?

stranger.strange.land said...

@ Reynold

Me: You speak of the many "corrections" as if they are the final authoritative word on what is being discussed. Can you even allow for the possibility that Ray does read and understand them, but just doesn't buy it.

Reynold: Easy. He never refutes the corrections and says "this is why it's wrong..." He just goes on as if the corrections were never made in the first place, and then repeats the same "mistakes" over and over.

One example is sufficient to illustrate my point. I'm sure you will remember it, since it wasn't that long ago.

You had said that Jesus' suffering and death was not a sufficient payment to cover the sinner's penalty of eternity in hell. (After all, his physical pain was only for a few hours, and his body was only three days in the tomb.)

I explained that on the cross the Fathers wrath against sin was poured out on Jesus as he "bore our sins." Since Jesus Christ is an eternal person, being God and man, his substitutionary sacrifice was sufficient to pay for the sins of the whole world. (That, by the way, is the common confession of the Christian church.)

You did not show me how my explaination was deficient, but merely repeated your initial assertion that being dead for three days is not equal to eternity in hell.

Since that conversation, I have seen you post comments to others saying again that Jesus' suffering and death could not have covered the sinner's eternal punishment in hell. Did I break in and say, "Reynold is a liar. He has had that explained to him"? No. I accepted the fact that you just didn't "buy" my explaination. Yes, I did once interrupt and comment, "Reynold, haven't you and I talked about this before?"

Reynold, and others who are commenting here, I hope I have shed a little light on the controversy that is being discussed here. Also, I know that Trish doesn't want this issue to divert us from our main task of sharing the Gospel.

Craig B.

stranger.strange.land said...

To Logic Lad

Thank you for your kind and reasoned response. I recently remarked to a couple of my atheist friends that this "Ray is a liar" campaign is something I have no desire to participate in, either to defend or accuse. I have no taste for it, nor do I think it would be the best use of my time.

I do hope that my comments here have served in some way to ameliorate the situation.

The Christians here have a Gospel of salvation to preach. We have a message of warning and a message of hope. We will not allow ourselves to be diverted from the commision that our Lord and King has given us.

Craig B.

ExPatMatt said...

Craig B.

Your example would only be a valid analogy to what Ray does if Reynold had said;

"Christians believe that Christ took a 3 day holiday in the Bahamas and then went back to Heaven, leaving empty beer bottles and a traffic cone in the empty tomb"

You, of course, would correct this - because it's wrong. It doesn't matter whether or not what you believe is true, Reynold would be misrepresenting your position. And if he kept on doing it, he would be lying.

This is what Ray does.

I'm not saying atheists don't lie, but it just seems worse when someone who extols the virtues of being in a relationship with the giver of all truth in the universe continually breaks one of the 10 Commandments!

/2 cents

stranger.strange.land said...

Hey Logic Lad

Yes, I did read the second half of your post too. I just needed to check on some things before getting back to you.

Two Sundays ago, we had an excellent lecture at church about the transmission of the texts of the Old and New Testaments. I see that it has now been posted on line.

I'm not to sure how I'm going to direct you to it yet, with the restriction on url addresses.

I'll get back to you later.

Craig

Fish with Trish said...

Reynold said, "If we keep catching you people lying about stuff that we can check up on, why are we expected to take your word for it when it comes to things we can't check up on?"

What have I lied about??

Fish with Trish said...

Logic Lad said, "...I am not trying to be sarcastic but have you actually read the comments on Athiest Central? "

No. Not every one. If I did...it would be my full time job. There are so many comments I have no idea how you all keep up with them. You must have a lot of time on your hands. (Eph 5:16) :-)

Logic Lad said, "My point was that just because Ray can quote scripture does not mean that i have to blieve a single word that comes out of his keyboard, indeed based on what i have read i am inclined to treat anything he says with a healthy scepticism. There is plenty of scripture i have a problem with, mostly the parts where the apprently perfect and benevloent god is being an immoral, cruel tyrant."

Okay. Fair enough. I'm not here to defend Ray and I'm certainly not here to defend God--as though He needs it. :-)

Which verses?

Shoot away.

And are these verses what keep you from repenting and putting your faith in Christ?

Logic Lad said, "Please tell me what you think christian philosophy i am borrowing from?"

The biblical worldview. I'm saying that you can't detect what is right and wrong with out the biblical worldview which tells us what is good and what is evil. What is right and what is wrong. On previous post, Emram posted my thoughts almost to a tee. Not sure that these were ever addressed. I might bring this up later.

Logic Lad said, "You still haven't addressed The teapot question?"

Sorry. Remind me.

Logic Lad said, "are you saying the christianity is not a religion?"

Of course it is a religion. Sorry. I didn't make that clear. But the word "religion" has been very twisted. I'd rather stick to what the bible gives as a definition of religion: "Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world." James 1:27

I said directed at you (Logic Lad), "is the biblical account regarding man being created by God and being made male and female, not reliable?'"

You answered, "in a word no"

How do you know this?

Where do you get your information from?

Isn't just your opinion?

Aren't you being closed minded?

Jorgon Gorgon said...

Fish with Trish: "I'm saying that you can't detect what is right and wrong with out the biblical worldview which tells us what is good and what is evil. What is right and what is wrong. "

See, that is precisely the problem. The above statement is incorrect, of course, since morality is a.well-described as an adaptation of a social animal, and b.(if you wish for more metaphysical reasons) there are many ethical systems that do not involve any God whatsoever. In fact, the independence of morality from God (and, in general, religion) has been shown by Plato 2500 years ago.

So, how should I put it with kindness? ;) This is a classic example of someone that has very strong beliefs but is ignorant about the state of thought on such beliefs. And if not ignorant, then let's see your specific objections to Euthyphro, evolutionary bases of morality and theories of ethics from Spinoza to Mill to Rawls...

Jorgon Gorgon said...

Re: the Biblical account of creation. Not only is it unreliable, but simply incorrect. I base my opinion here on a multitude of observations from astronomy, geology, biology, genetics and a host of other disciplines, all of which agree unequivocally.

Re: close-mindedness: Am I being close-minded when I reject the doctrine of flat earth and geocentrism? Or the belief that chicken pox is caused by the evil eye? If not, how is that different?

emram said...

Logic Lad and G.E,

Did you both forget about my questions from past posts?? There's still a few unanswered questions. But that's okay...

I'll pray for you, I mean...I've been praying for you and I want you to commit to me that when you are converted you'll let me know or at least Trish know. I have been talking to God about you and so has Trish. I pray that He breaks in on your hearts and that you'll fall to your knees and cry out to Him for mercy. That's what I did. He broke in on my world when I was 19 yrs old and I've never been the same. All I know was I was blind and now I see.

stranger.strange.land said...

Logic Lad

I posted that link to the lecture about the transmission of scriptures on your blog.

Craig B.

Reynold said...

Fish with Trish said...

Reynold said, "If we keep catching you people lying about stuff that we can check up on, why are we expected to take your word for it when it comes to things we can't check up on?"


iiWhat have I lied about??
I'm referring to evangelists in general. That's why I said "you people" as opposed to you yourself.

Your friend Ray is a prime example. Others I've met and whose works I've read are no better.

At worst, from what little I can see of your writings, you seem oblivious to Ray's lies.

That's not really much better.

I notice that you've evaded the implication of what I was saying though.

Reynold said...

stranger.strange.land said...

@ Reynold

Me: You speak of the many "corrections" as if they are the final authoritative word on what is being discussed. Can you even allow for the possibility that Ray does read and understand them, but just doesn't buy it.

Reynold: Easy. He never refutes the corrections and says "this is why it's wrong..." He just goes on as if the corrections were never made in the first place, and then repeats the same "mistakes" over and over.


One example is sufficient to illustrate my point. I'm sure you will remember it, since it wasn't that long ago.

You had said that Jesus' suffering and death was not a sufficient payment to cover the sinner's penalty of eternity in hell. (After all, his physical pain was only for a few hours, and his body was only three days in the tomb.)

I explained that on the cross the Fathers wrath against sin was poured out on Jesus as he "bore our sins." Since Jesus Christ is an eternal person, being God and man, his substitutionary sacrifice was sufficient to pay for the sins of the whole world. (That, by the way, is the common confession of the Christian church.)

His being an "eternal" person just makes the situation worse. I said before that since he's allegedly lived forever before he "died" and will live forever after he "died", that a measely three days is pretty much nothing to him. Whereas for humans with finite lifespans, three days is proportionally a lot longer.

Yet, when we "pay for our sins", it's US, the finite beings who have to suffer for eternity, while the "eternal" being only had to make the smaller payment of three days.

Sounds obvious to me...unlike Ray I at least try to explain why I don't change my mind about stuff like this.

By the way, you've never said whether what Ray does is honest or not...

You did not show me how my explaination was deficient, but merely repeated your initial assertion that being dead for three days is not equal to eternity in hell.
"Assertion"? Ever hear of mathematics? Three is a small number, "eternity" is a huge, infinite number. You either have a poor (or a really different understanding of math) or else you're ignoring what I say (then falsely saying that I've not explained how your explanation was deficient)

Since that conversation, I have seen you post comments to others saying again that Jesus' suffering and death could not have covered the sinner's eternal punishment in hell. Did I break in and say, "Reynold is a liar. He has had that explained to him"? No. I accepted the fact that you just didn't "buy" my explaination. Yes, I did once interrupt and comment, "Reynold, haven't you and I talked about this before?"
yes, and you never refuted me. My argument stands. In order for it not to, you'd have to contend with mathematics itself.

As I said, I at least try to explain why I don't buy your view. Ray doesn't. He just goes on as if nothing happened.

See the difference?

Reynold said...

Ok, ExPatMatt's March 12, 2009 12:26 PM post does a better job of explaining this.

Reynold said...

Speaking of how Ray operates:

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2009/03/bone-of-contention.html

Yep, Ray's at it again...remember my first comment in this post?

3. Where did females come from (in every species)?
I pointed out examples of where Ray got corrected on that, but here he is, just pretending as if nothing happened, asking the same question.


5. There are variations within species, but no species to species transitional forms in the fossil record.

I know full well that Ray's been pointed to the Talk Origin archive's Observed instances of Speciation section and their Fossil sections.

stranger.strange.land said...

Reynold,

So your refusal to receive salvation is because the numbers don't add up? I don't believe you.

As far as Ray is concerned, I think you are going to live with the fact that he holds to a different theory of the history of the universe (and humankind) than you do.

Craig B.

Reynold said...

stranger.strange.land said...

Reynold,

So your refusal to receive salvation is because the numbers don't add up? I don't believe you.

I don't care what you think of me, it's the truth. Your religion just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Everything from biblical mistakes, contradictions from an "inerrant" being, etc. You're falsely making it look like I don't want to be "saved" when I'm trying to tell you that I don't see any evidence of a "saviour" in the first place.

As far as Ray is concerned, I think you are going to live with the fact that he holds to a different theory of the history of the universe (and humankind) than you do.
I know he does, but he does it by ignoring any contrary evidence when presented to him, NOT through checking that evidence out and finding it wanting. For an example, check out his most recent post...

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2009/03/bone-of-contention.html

Jorgon Gorgon said...

Stranger:"As far as Ray is concerned, I think you are going to live with the fact that he holds to a different theory of the history of the universe (and humankind) than you do."

Ray has no theory, but a hypothesis at best. I would also say that his hypothesis has been disconfirmed by an alarming amount of evidence. Of course, he is free to hold on to his beliefs, and I can live with that fact. But he has to learn to live with the fact of being laughed at and and used as an example of intellectual laziness and dishonesty.

stranger.strange.land said...

Reynold.

Not believing you and what I think of you are two different things. I accept what the bible says about the real reasons people will not come to Christ. Personally, I like you a lot. I tend to develop kind of a connection with people I have conversations with. And you and I have had several discussions over the last year.

I do honestly hope that Ray,s refusal to accept the evolutionists' point of view doesn't disturb you too much. Some of the atheists seem to be obsessed over it.

Ray has his standards, and presuppositions by which he evaluates evidence. I don't think he ignores it.

I hope you have a pleasent weekend, my friend.

Craig

stranger.strange.land said...

Jorgon Gorgon said...

...[Ray] has to learn to live with the fact of being laughed at and and used as an example of intellectual laziness and dishonesty.

So, what can you do about that?

Craig

get_education said...

Hi Trish,

I told you, have two Bibles at home, and I have read and continue to read some of the online versions.

I do not care about Michael Ruse.

I am not asking you to "believe in evolution", nor am I trying to convince you that genesis is just a story. All I am saying is that evolutionary theory does make sense, and that what Ray presents as evolution, is not what the theory is about. Again, evolution could be false, but it is not what Ray says it is. The only way to say that evolution is ridiculous is if you do not understand it. An intellectually honest, well versed, Christian would at least understand this, and just say that it is false because it contradicts the Bible.

-------
emram,

I answered your questions at the other thread. So I do not know what you are asking now.

-------
Craig (stranger),

Please tell me which straw man have I made of the Bible/Christianity, and I will check it out. So far, nobody has pointed to anything like that in my posts.

Also, Ray is truly a charlatan. If he were just "not buying it" he would be able to explain clearly why not. Yet, all he does is repeat the same trash. Take the one about the "female evolving for each male of each species at the right time", which, by all means, makes him appear as astoundingly absurd. He likes this one because it is so dumb it becomes obfuscating just to try and explain him.

G.E.

get_education said...

Hi Craig,

The Christians here have a Gospel of salvation to preach. We have a message of warning and a message of hope. We will not allow ourselves to be diverted from the commision that our Lord and King has given us.

Exactly. What would you expect to happen if a Christian, who is supposed to be giving us a message of warning and hope for salvation was caught again and again lying? Of course, if I were even in the slightest inclined to hear the message, after the obvious lies, I would just dismiss the whole thing. Why believe such unverifiable things when those things I can understand, and I do know about from direct evidence and work, are so obviously misrepresented? I cannot even have the slightest respect for the bearer of the message.

Actually, the willingness of all of you to be on Ray's side would make me even more reluctant.

Take this little contradiction for an example: Ray has said in his videos about evangelizing that you have to bypass the intellect to get into the moral issues. Yet, he insists in calling on our intellects by stating absurd versions of science, so that when he talks about moral issues he is so mistrusted that even that goes down the drain.

Would any atheist hear Ray if he did not lie abut science? Maybe not many. But that is not the issue. The issue is. Why start lying about science in the first place when you are supposed to bypass the intellect?

Of course, in Ray's case, because then he would sell fewer books, and have fewer invitations to conferences. His lifestyle would be in jeopardy. he is in it for the lifestyle, not for any evangelism. I bet he even doubts there is a God. He is cynical enough to be living a lie full time.

G.E.

stranger.strange.land said...

Hey G.E.

I don't recall your ever having set up a straw-man, to attack the Bible and Christianity, in your posts. That is one reason I appreciate our conversations so much. I wish we could talk more often.

But, I would have to ask you as a friend, exactly when have I ever even participated in one of the "debates" about science and evolution at AC, except to ask a question now and then, to get an explaination of something I don't understand?

I will answer the rest of your comment this afternoon when I get home from church. Have to get ready now.

Craig

get_education said...

Hi Craig,

Sorry I was not clear enough. I also enjoy taking to you because there is no animosity. And yeah, you are right, I have not discussed with you, we have mostly exchanged explanations. And I warned you about the dishonesty in scmike's and Sye's presuppositionalism (presuppositionalists are not always that dishonest. The famous ones do, or did, recognize the problem of circularity in their argument. They tried to justify it, not quite successfully. But I recognize that, when confronted with the problems, they did think about them --Van Tillian, for example.)

Anyway, my blurb above is more about why Ray is a problem for Christianity, more than an evangelist, and how his contradictions also harm the cause. I was not accusing you of using the strawmen, or anything. The only thing that seems to apply is that you tried, above, to say that he might be honestly rejecting the arguments of the atheists. He is not. I am quite sure. There is a point where the only possible explanation is dishonesty. And believe me, I am quite slow at getting at such a conclusion. I hold too long to the "benefit of the doubt" thing.

Anyway, my apologies if I seemed to imply that you were supporting the strawmen.

So, no need for any further answers to my comments about Ray. I appreciate your efforts though.

Best,

G.E.

stranger.strange.land said...

G.E.

First of all, I'm not Ray Comfort. I am Craig Boyd. In my evangelism, whether face to face or on line, I am responsible for my own words and attitude toward people. I answer the questions I am able to and don't get into subjects that I don't know much about.

I contually review the Bible to make sure I don't deviate from the Gospel that was once for all delivered to us. I trust God to open men and womens' hearts and to create faith in them. That is His job, not mine. I am also responsible to behave in a way that honors the Lord who bought me.

You said, Actually, the willingness of all of you to be on Ray's side would make me even more reluctant [to have the slightest respect for the bearer of the message].

I am satisfied that the Gospel that Ray preaches, and the Law / Gospel way of presenting it is in accordance with what Jesus and the Apostles taught.

As for his articles on science and evolution, I don't understand very much of that. I don't understand much of Stephen J's rebuttals either. I am sure that there are Christians that have a good knowledge of those things. They would be better equipped to help you that I am. Really, I wish I could.

You said, Of course, in Ray's case, because then he would sell fewer books, and have fewer invitations to conferences. His lifestyle would be in jeopardy. he is in it for the lifestyle, not for any evangelism. I bet he even doubts there is a God. He is cynical enough to be living a lie full time.

I am not in a position to judge another man's inner motives, either Ray,s or yours. When I don't know the motive, it is best to have a charitable opinion.

Hey, G.E., I sure wish it was possible to have both you and Reynold here in my living room. I think we'd enjoy each other's company and have good conversation.

Thanks, my friend.

Craig

stranger.strange.land said...

(note to G.E. and other readers) My last comment was written before G.E.'s comment above it was posted. Mine is a continuation of what I had begun this morning. It will make more sense if it is read this way.

Craig

The Murphy's said...

I am not a Christian. Yet,I am a follower of Jesus. If I said I were a Christian you would think that I agree with Ray(and the many others), I have always had a problem with Ray and his methods. Yet, Ray and I do share two things, WE are not perfect and our faith in Jesus. Though Ray would think I am not a Christian, I am sure, and that I am liberal one at that.

Here's my suggestion to "Christians" in talking to our fellow brothers and sisters in this blog called "unbelievers":
1. Christian Apologetics are nothing more than making God an item to be bought into and sold. Throw out apologetics. These people you are debating with on this blog are very intelligent, lets give them that.
2. Throw out the creation debate. If you really believe what you say, it doesn't matter about making someone else believe it. Your job as a "Christian" isn't to sell them on a 7 day creation.
3. Lose, lose this battle.Its ok, as you believe, God is really big.

Last, if you believe God is really big, then why aren't you talking to "unbelievers" about their soul. Their soul is yearning to hear something real and authentic, not lies, and gospel selling tactics. I am not talking about pointing out all of their sins either, I am talking about that deep down something that all of us possess. Its deep. It drives our lives, our decisions, our heart. Ask them about that.
I don't believe the battle is in the mind or based on how intelligent you can make an argument about Gods existence.

It is deeper, our soul is farther ahead than our mind,it already knows.

The truth is that we can throw all of this stuff aside about apologetics, and focus on something Jesus said. He said "Follow Me". All I can say to my fellow brothers and sisters in this world that maybe you haven't heard, try it, try to follow Jesus. You don't need to try and clean up your life before you follow, you don't have to follow any rules or religious systems, you don't even have to go to church. Oh no, I will hear about that one. But, I would suggest trying to read Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John or listening to it on audio. See if what you hear from the mouth of Jesus, is the same thing you hear from "Christians". After that try something, try and follow Jesus for a while. You will see what I mean by follow Him, when you read the about Him. Its not what you see or hear from most modern day "Christians."

Fellow followers of Jesus. I am not trying to condemn you, I am sorry if it sounds like it. I apologize if I've offended you.

Let me know if I can help.

Ryan Murphy
murphyrjb@gmail.com

get_education said...

Hey Craig,

I understood that you did not see my post when you wrote yours. that is fine.

Anyway, when I visit California, close to that desert, I will let you know. If Joseph (Joseph?) is around, maybe we can talk science (biochemistry is so coooool) too.

G.E.

get_education said...

Ryan,

That was nice.

G.E.

Fish with Trish said...

The Murphy's,

On your blog comment section in response to Curt Chadwick you say, "I am a Pro Choice Christian".

So when you say "I am not a Christian" here on this comment of yours...I'm not sure what you mean...

Can you explain?

emram said...

G.E. and Reynold,

Both of you guys never did answer any of my questions. You should both be ashamed to even be on this blog anymore seeing that you provided no answers for any of my arguments and questions. Of course I realize that in a materialist chance universe such as you propose to believe in and pretend to live in, it would be hard to give any meaningful answers for life’s toughest questions and stay consistent.

emram said...

The Murphy's (Ryan),

Did you say you were not a Christian but you were a follower of Jesus? What do you mean by that?? These verses may help you out (Acts 11.26; 26.28; 1 Pet. 4.16).

“Apologetics” is a biblical term from the Greek word, “apologia” meaning “defense” (1 Pet. 3.15). Perhaps it might be good if you stay off the blog and then the atheist’s will not be agreeing with you; unless of course you want them too?

“Try following Jesus”, “you don’t need to go to church”
What? When Jesus calls a person he calls them to come and die. To deny yourself. To take up your cross and follow Him on the road marked with suffering. Perhaps you might consider going back to Sunday school where they teach you songs like, “Because the Bible tells me so”. Of course we know that going to church doesn’t save a person. It’s Christ who saves. But if you are plugged into a solid church it might be a good indicator that you are OF the church. And how are you supposed to obey the commands of scripture if you’re not in church?

*Acts 9:29* “And he was talking and /arguing/ with the Hellenistic /Jews/; but they were attempting to put him to death.”

Paul continued to defend the truth to “argue” if you would. He would say… just “follow me”. This is what he told believers not unbelievers (1 Cor. 11.1). Perhaps you should re-read the word of God before you give Christian’s advice on how to evangelize and debate. Now if you’re reading books like the Shack…that explains everything.

Reynold said...

emram said...

G.E. and Reynold,

Both of you guys never did answer any of my questions. You should both be ashamed to even be on this blog anymore seeing that you provided no answers for any of my arguments and questions. Of course I realize that in a materialist chance universe such as you propose to believe in and pretend to live in, it would be hard to give any meaningful answers for life’s toughest questions and stay consistent.

Link to your question to me please?

And maybe park your attitude while you're at it.

The Murphy's said...

FishWithTrish:
As you can see, here is my imperfection...I am still trying to deprogram myself from using the word "Christian" to describe myself. Yet, it still comes out sometimes. You caught me! Thanks.
What I am saying when I say I am not a Christian, is that I don't want to align myself with what "Christan" has come to mean, especially in the USA.

EMRAM (Pastor Ramos):

See the above to answer your question about being a Christian. Thanks for the verses, I've read them often, and wish we could get back to what the word "Christian" originally meant. Plus, man named themselves Christian, not Jesus.

Thanks for the break down of Greek for apologetics. Though the Bible never says anything about trying to convince those that don't believe by trying to get them to believe a 7 day theory about creation, or for that matter all the millions of dollars spent by Christians trying to figure out just how old the earth is.

You said "Perhaps it might be good if you stay off the blog and then the atheist’s will not be agreeing with you; unless of course you want them too?" I am sorry, I just see the atheist, as a fellow human being, I figured they could be talked to as such. Yes, I want them to agree with me. Pastor, I am sure you have read about the religious leaders of Jesus time, they thought Jesus was a sinner and a drunk.

As for your question about following Jesus, and not going to church...read the book of Acts, they didn't meet in buildings...they meet in houses. Small groups...worshiping together. What did you do before you met in the church you are renting now? Was it a sin to meet in your house, was it less of "a church". A church isn't a building, it is US! Oh..yea...I do decide to go to "a church" somewhere every Saturday. Heb 10:25 says to assemble with other believers, it doesn't say where.

About Paul talking to the Hellenistic Jews...yes...he disputed with them....about Jesus!...not how old the earth is, about creation/evolution, etc. I am talking about Jesus saying "follow me", not Paul...Jesus said "follow me" to unbelievers---> John 1:43, unless you are saying the disciples were "Christians" before they even knew Christ.

Last, I am sure you aren't saying that Trish and Ray are the premier way to evangelize and debate, or at least I hope not.

get_education said...

emram,

You should go back and see the other thread. I did answer your questions.

Reynold also answered your questions. he was much more elaborate than me, which might explain why you were not able to acknowledge his answers. In my case, I have no idea what stopped you from reading.

If in doubt, just ask again. One by one please, so that you do not lose track again.

I am never ashamed. If I make a mistake I correct it, if possible, and live on.

G.E.

get_education said...

Also emram,

Please, do not put words in my mouth. I never said anything about "proposing to believe in a materialist chance universe". That is atheism according to your woldview, not mine.

G.E.

stranger.strange.land said...

G.E.

I hope we can arrange that. Email me so we can talk about it privately.

Craig

Fish with Trish said...

The Murphy's, where do you live? In Fort Worth??

Fish with Trish said...

Your church looks like it is in North Richland Hills. Not far at all. Want to be on the radio. :-) Perhaps you'd like to talk to Todd Friel?? :-)

The Murphy's said...

Hey Trish,

Yep, my wife and I live in North Richland Hills, and I do fellowship at Richland Hills Church of Christ.

Please email me about talking to Todd, my email is murphyrjb@gmail.com

Thanks,

Ryan

get_education said...

Trish,

You might want to re-think this bit:

Remember, you have to assert that there is a God in order to deny one.

This does not make the slightest sense. It is pretty much like saying that you have to assert that there is a fairy to deny that fairies exist, or to assert that there is a Thor to deny Thor's existence, and so on and so forth. Do you really think it made sense?

G.E.

get_education said...

Hi Craig,

Whenever I go that way I will sure e-mail you.

Best,
G.E.

stranger.strange.land said...

G.E.

Okay. I am 20 min. off the I-15 between L.A. and Las Vegas, b.t.w.

Craig

Javier said...

I don't see what all the fuss is about, if Ray lied he's only consistent with his view that all men are sinners. But, why are we supposing that Ray lied, or was dishonest? Perhaps he's misinformed?

Nonetheless, I don't care to defend Ray. He, frankly, can defend himself. Plus he's an Arminian ;)

So far, what I have seen is more of an anti-Ray argument than an anti-Christian argument. If Ray lies, cheats, or lusts it doesn't disprove Christianity it only proves Ray is consistent with his view that men are sinners.

It seems, that the Christian faith hasn't been argued against. I've only glanced over the thread (there are 51 comments, and unlike Reynold I don't care to end hours being an activist for my position).

Feel free to point me to anything you've said.

-Javy

stranger.strange.land said...

Javier

Aren't we all Arminians by nature?

(At least Ray is not a Pelagian. That would be bad.);-)

Craig

Reynold said...

Javier
It seems, that the Christian faith hasn't been argued against. I've only glanced over the thread (there are 51 comments, and unlike Reynold I don't care to end hours being an activist for my position).
Ya, Jave. That's why you have your own blog where you talk about your religion.

get_education said...

Well Javier, all this happened because Trish insisted lots of times on sending me stuff by Ray. A Bible edited with comments by Ray. So, I was just explaining why I do not want anything by Ray.

He is not just misinformed, nor is he being "consistent" that all men are sinners. If he lies on purpose, yep, he is sinning, but he is not being consistent because he is supposed to repent of his sins. I doubt you can repent on something you do quite gladly for a living. Unless there is something in the Bible like "being a liar for Jesus is fine."

G.E.