390 comments posted · 3 followers · following 0

11 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - Democrats and God · 0 replies · +4 points

No, it doesn't mean that the people were more holy. But the standard they were held to was considerably more strict, and I would assume therefore the standard was more holy, yes? And if the standard they were held to was so holy, and included provisions to own slaves, commands to kill unruly children, etc., then why don't you aspire to that standard and follow along with those laws?

I seriously can't fathom how you can believe that a holy, just, morally perfect God, in his law written for his allegedly chosen people, makes provisions to allow for sin and instructions on how to carry out such sin. Your defense of God's actions and declarations is lacking at best.

11 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - Democrats and God · 0 replies · +5 points

Yeah, that's some crazy fetishes, huh? And yet, none of that is as perverse as the hard-on fundies get out of telling other people what they can and can't do in their own bedrooms. Now that's a sick perversion.

11 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - Democrats and God · 0 replies · +7 points

Isn't that the funniest thing? Fundies protest homosexuality because it's 'unnatural'. Then, when we point out where it occurs in nature, they respond with, "Well why would we want to be like animals! We're more civilized than that."

How can you worship a God that made you that stupid?

11 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - Hospitals Kill Two Mil... · 0 replies · +2 points

You refute them, and I'll shut up. How's that sound?

11 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - Democrats and God · 2 replies · +4 points

Several points to make here.

1. So the Isrealites were God's chosen people, and thus held against a higher standard of rules and morality. This means that these rules of forcing women to marry their rapists, owning and beating slaves, committing genocide, killing children, were all part of a higher standard of morality than we have today. You're not helping your case here.

2. In regards to Deuteronomy 22:25-27, how does that help your case? So raping a married woman deserves death. How does that cancel out the fact that the rape an unmarried woman results in that poor woman getting forced to marry her rapist?

3. You'll notice in Deuteronomy 22:28, prior to the word "shakab", it uses the word (as spelled on the website I'm looking at) t'fasa, which means to manipulate, seize, or capture. It matches rather well with the translation, since it first says the man lays hold on her (t'fasa), and then lie with her (shakab).

4. So what if slavery wasn't part of God's original design. So what if God doesn't actually like it. He still writes into his bible provisions and rules to slavery. He condones the act of owning and beating slaves. If he doesn't like it, and thinks it's immoral, as do I, then that makes it even worse, since he says nothing to condemn this act that he allegedly believes is immoral. And again, if this is God's chosen people, and held to a higher standard of morality and law, then why the hell is God giving them provisions for something as immoral as slavery?!

5. I guess there's nothing to cover in reference to the stoning of unruly children. You don't seem to be hiding or tap-dancing around the fact that you consider it moral to kill these children. But I do have to wonder, if you're kid cursed you out, would you consider it right to kill your kid? If not, then is that because you don't hold yourself to as high a standard as Isreal was? Funny how Christians don't aspire to the moral standards held to God's chosen, but are instead so quick to say that they don't have to be held to those standards anymore.

6. As we've already looked at Deuteronomy 25:27, which only commands death for a man who rapes a betrothed woman. These virgins were not betrothed, and therefore fair game. Moses didn't tell the men to take the virgins for the sake of the virgins' safety and innocence, he told the men to take the virgins for themselves. It takes a lot of cognitive dissonance to try to deny what happens next.

7. Your last paragraph is basically a dressed up form of the phrase "God works in mysterious ways." All it is is a cop out. I tapdance to avoid having to defend the moral actions of the God you worship, but just blindly accept that they are moral for whatever reason and you don't need to understand. Like hell if I'm going to just blindly accept that anything anyone does must be moral based on who did it, and it disgusts me that there are people that would.

11 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - Democrats and God · 0 replies · +3 points

Or how much of an abomination a polyester blend is.

11 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - Democrats and God · 1 reply · +3 points

Value is relative, my friend. A diamond is just a rock to those who don't care about how shiny it is.

And frankly, I'd much rather have a world of relative ethics than absolute ethics. Your absolute ethics suggest that it's morally okay to force a raped woman to marry her rapist, that it's morally okay to stone disobedient children to death, that it's morally okay to own and beat slaves. I would much rather have ethics that are derived from rational thought and consensus with other people than the crap that you claim is absolute morality.

11 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - Democrats and God · 7 replies · +7 points

"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." Deuteronomy 22:28-29

"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." Exodus 21:20-21

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." Leviticus 2:9

""Have you allowed all the women to live?" [Moses] asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."" Numbers 31:15-18

11 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - Five Bullets · 0 replies · +1 points

True Christians also don't blatantly and pathologically lie and bear false witness, right? And that brings us back to this.

List of blatant lies by Ray Comfort:

1) There is no evidence for evolution - Scores of evidence has been pointed out to Ray, but he either dismisses it without cause or refuses to acknowledge it, and then claims no evidence is presented. This is a blatant lie.

2) Evolution says that nothing created everything - He has been told countless times that this is false, and still continues to make the claim. This is a blatant lie.

3) Evolutionists are looking for transitional fossils resembling a crocoduck - Not only have evolutionists pointed out that this is false, but they've pointed out that if something resembling a crockoduck were to be found, it would disprove evolution. After being told this, Ray continued to use the crocoduck. This is a blatant lie.

4) Evolution is disproven since there are no half evolved eyes, etc. - Ray has been corrected on this misconception of how the evolutionary process works not in individual organisms but through generations of species, and still continues to use it. This is a blatant lie. L

5) Evolution says male dogs had to wait for female dogs to evolve seperately but with perfect timing - Not only has this claim been demonstrated false by evolutionists, but Ray at one point admitted his misconception about the relation of genders and evolution. Not long after, Ray still used the same exact argument. This is a blatant lie.

6) The theory of evolution is unscientific - It has been pointed out to Ray how the theory of evolution and its development follows along the scientific process. He continues to make the claim without pointing out exactly what makes it un-scientific. This is a blatant lie.

7) Evolutionists should believe that earthquakes are a good thing - This was one of the more disgusting claims that Ray made, using the tragedy of the earthquake in japan to make ridiculous accusations about evolutionists. Evolutionists do not believe that earthquakes are nature improving itself, nor does the theory of evolution suggest anything remotely similar. This was a blatant lie.

8) Evolution says it's okay to kill weaker people - It has been pointed out to Ray that the Survival of the fittest section of evolution is not a moral base, but rather an explanation of a scenario in which two species face harsh conditions, the more fit species is more likely to survive. Ray still makes this claim in comparison to Hitler's genocide on a fairly regular basis. This is a blatant lie.

9) Atheists believe that nothing is wrong and everything is permissible - It has been pointed out to Ray many times that this is a false claim. Just because Atheists do not get their sense of right and wrong from the bible does not mean that atheists do not get a sense of right and wrong. Ray still continues to make this claim. This is a blatant lie.

10) Ray believes everything in the bible, and he is saved and guaranteed heaven - As demonstrated in 1 - 9, Ray Comfort bears false witness on a regular basis. If he believes everything in the bible, he must believe 1 John 2:4 which calls him a liar and says the truth is not in him, along with Revelations 21:8, which says that, since Ray is a liar, he will have his place in hell. Either Ray does not agree with the bible as he claims, or Ray is not guaranteed salvation as he claims. Either way, he is blatantly lying.

Ray, where will you go when you die?

11 years ago @ http://raycomfortfood.... - Democrats and God · 0 replies · +10 points

I'll vote for any theist that doesn't base the policies they're trying to impose on their religious ideology. I wonder, would you ever vote for an atheist for any political office? What do you feel about the states that still have laws that forbid atheists from running for office?