Ray Comfort debates "skeptics" at the Creation Museum.

Although I'm not usually a fan of Comfort, I do think he deserves kudos for debating so many people from his paradigm.

However, I learnt two new things here from Comfort's dogma, which I didn't know before about Christian fundamentalists.

They regard the current troubles over Jerusalem as a fulfilled prophesy, and they also think that the increase in homosexuality and vegetarianism are fulfilled prophesies, and thus proof that the Bible is inerrant.
How they know that Jerusalem is now more disputed than, for example, the crusades, or that homosexuality and vegetarianism are more widespread than in past generations is anyone's guess.

Then, I always thought that the heathen who hasn't heard the message (of Jesus) is not condemned?

Not so according to Comfort, who says that all (I guess "unsaved") people are condemned to burn in hell for eternity because they will die as "criminals" before a "just God".

On these points see the clip from 07:13-13:00.
I might add that on vegetarianism Comfort later gives a rushed answer that his source is the first two chapters of 1 Timothy.
I can't find anything on vegetarianism here.
Biblically I only know it from Genesis 1:29 as the original diet of humans, and I cannot believe that any "spiritual" person would actively condemn it, and promote the suffering of millions of innocent animals in factory farms.
That's like promoting hell on earth.

OK, back to all those "unsaved people" who haven't heard the message.
They will yearn for Jesus according to Comfort because of the Creation, but they will burn in hell as unforgiven cannibals, rapists and looking at women in lust.
However, if they yearn for God hard enough, He will send them a nice missionary, and then their people can finally stop going to hell.

Anyway, I think Ray doesn't answer much really, and loses a bet over a Bible verse at the end.

Is he right according to Christianity?

How many people agree with Ray Comfort?

Ray Comfort is to Christianity as Bush is to America.

reply to post by halfoldman


I like and respect Ray, but as a non-Fundamentalist, I do not agree with him.

The whole "Jerusalem/Israel being in the hands of the Jews is a sign of the end times" has been going around since the 1970s (Hal Lindsey's Late Great Planet Earth,) and it's been nothing but goal post moving as one "rock solid" predicted date fails after another.

Interesting and a bit funny.

Ray Comfort meets a free thinking Caribbean lady:

reply to post by adjensen

The whole "Jerusalem/Israel being in the hands of the Jews is a sign of the end times"

This would be true if it was correct but Jerusalem and the modern day country of Israel are not in the hands of the Jews. Besides Jerusalem is to be trodden by gentiles until the end.

The regathering Israel is not in reference to the modern state of Israel but to the house of Israel. Even Jesus said that he came for the lost sheep of Israel. The Jews are not of the house of Israel but of the house of Judah.

Ray Comfort was fairly solid in his theology while in New Zealand but once he immigrated to Southern California, errors crept into the theology. Everyone has errors but once an error is discovered you must tare down your theology and remove the error and rebuild with truth. That is not a pleasant task and requires one to eat humble pie. It is unfortunate that most will not do this as it is quite an unpleasant undertaking but is required if you love the truth.

There is nothing wrong with a person wanting to go either vegan or vegetarian, that is their choice. Telling people that they must or mustn't be vegan or vegetarian is clearly wrong. Are there more homosexuals today than before...I have no idea I haven't been counting them and I doubt Ray has either.

Ray Comfort seems like a nice guy and is good debater, but some of the things he says are not accurate and others are dumb.

Just like his Banana argument:

reply to post by danielsil18


No, he's just a mediocre salesman and an average thinker.

danielsil18
Ray Comfort seems like a nice guy and is good debater, but some of the things he says are not accurate and others are dumb.

Just like his Banana argument:

LMAO.

First of all, this guy is against evolution, no? Apes tends to eat bananas an have very similar hands.

Secondly, tons of animals who don't have similar hands eat bananas, too.

Thirdly, bananas don't even have a lot of nutrional value, and eating too many of them can make you have health problems from having too much potassium.

Fourthly, this is how bananas grow because it's how they fit together in a BUNCH. The grooves are coincidentally similar to the groves in a human hand, but they're there because they fit together like a puzzle with themselves when they're in the tree.

And lastly, why wasn't everything "designed" for the species that eats them? Bananas are not humans primary diet. The Koala bear ONLY eat eucalyptus leaves, why aren't the leaves shaped specifically to fit the koala's hands, hm? And geeze, God must have really not wanted ANYONE to eat coconuts.

Geeze, if there is a God he must have flunked out of celestial design school.