Ray Comfort versus Richard Dawkins

[jaredbork]

Weird, it only stops making sense when the video pauses.

[Woltato]

"Richard Dawkins thinks that paedophilia is ok"

Where did that come from? I've never heard Richard Dawkins condoning paedophilia.

[k.s.c.]

You’re doing a great ministry, Ray!! The Great Commision!!! - from. Republic of Korea (or South Korea), someone who loves you and your ministry in Christ

[tommyg.]

i guess Dawkins didn't study the Bible enough before he went ahead and talked about it, or he's just trying to find a way to go against it. lol

[samuelayodele]

something about dawkins face, tired of fighting god, not knowing jesus died for him

[billaitken]

Comfort; 'Professor Dawkins thinks that mild paedophilia is OK'

That's not what he said.

Dawkins; 'Mild paedophilia is bad. Violent paedophilia is worse. If you think that is an endorsement of mild paedophilia go away and learn how to think'.

Sound logic and good advice.

[BenGLastreezy]

Oh Look, Richard Dawkins is still alive! Praying for Him

[HockeygeekRULZ]

You have to love the irony in this Ray Comfort dude calling other people intellectually embarrassing

[michaelhelms]

I sure do hope Dawkins sees the truth one day. It’s astonishing that such a brilliant man who seems to have done some biblical research can’t understand that we as Christians are no longer under the OT law, but under GRACE. That’s why we don’t stone women and kill homosexuals. It’s not given us to do that. And Christians are to be Christ-like with love and prayer for those who are buried in sin.

[noecamarena]

HEY RICHARD remember when Jesus saved the adultres woman, and said he without sin throw the first stone.

BUT THAT DOESNT GO WITH YOUR NERRATIVE

[HKAB]

Interesting how one can misinterpret a statement as much as Ray Comfort does... Dawkins only said that he didn't condemn someone who had molested him since, according to Dawkins, it hadn't caused any lasting harm. He never claimed that molesting children is something acceptable that should be allowed in society..
And I hope you all remember that for thousands of years it wasn't considered wrong for a man to marry an under-aged girl. It was common practice in all christians nations in europe and in the european colonies (and in most places on earth). It was only in the 19th and 20th century that this practice was questioned.. To frown upon pedophilia is a more modern idea that society gave us, not God (unless God changed his mind about under aged girls being married during the 19th century and thus changed our conscience)

[GiyuTomiokaTheOneAndOnly]

Hahahahaha ... Watch how my professor debates with him, professor John Lennox 😂, he got him at Richard's face

[TheLeadSled]

God bless you Ray, keep preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. John 3:3

[brabbelbeest]

Hmm, it seems that we have yet another video of Ray Comfort in which I disagree with most of the content... but let's see...

- "America gets her morals from American laws" Actually no... laws come from morals not the other way around. If the vast majority sees something as immoral, it becomes a law.

- "Todays secular society okay's that which was unlawfull in the past" He only mentions acts that are considered sins in the Bible, because most actions that used to be unlawfull, still are unlawfull. Also todays secular society has made a number of things unlawfull which used to be lawfull..

- "Dawkins thinks mild pedophilia is okay" No he really doesn't. This is not only taking his words out of context, but even his entire point... In the interview these claims are based on he literally said that he cannot find it in him to condemn those who used him to conduct mild pedophilia because he think it isn't fair to judge them by todays moral standard, while in those days these actions wheren't considered as appalling as we see them today.
He doesn't in any way give a judgement on the actions themself, other then his believe that the actions didn't scar him (or his fellow victims) for life.

- "societies experts are already telling us that pedophilia shouldn't be condemned" I have no idea where Ray gets this information or ideas. If anything the condemnation of and hatred against pedophiles has only increased in the last few decades/centuries. Pedophilia today is considered one of the most despicable and horrible acts somebody can commit.
In the past pedophilia was treated much milder, even the age of consent has gone up compared with what it used to be. So I would say about the exact opposite of what Ray claims here.

- "He (Dawkins) embraces the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything" Again I strongly suspect this is wrong because nowhere in science is claimed that "nothing created everything".
This idea is probably caused by textbooks for children and scientists that have tried to explain the "big bang" theory in a oversimplified way and in laymans terms, using the term "nothing" to adress the absence of matter.
But nowhere in the actual science this is remotely true, and since Dawkins seems to have a fair grip and understanding on what science is actually claiming, I doubt that this his real position. Especially whan you consider how much time he spends with physicists like kraus.

- "we have a God given conscience that intuitively tells us that it is wrong to [insert list], and tells us that our creator should be first in our affections" No, we really do not seem to have this, at least not all of us apparently. Morality is a much more complicated and very subjective subject.
And as the idea that we have been given the inclination to put God first in our affection, this doesn't seem to be the case when you look at reality and on a side note also seems to go against the idea of complete free will.

- "the moral law, the ten commandments" These commandments do include some morally sound guidelines, about half of them in fact, because the first 4 commandments are only about God and the fifth is about the sabbath. Ironicly the very first commandment goes strait against one of the most basic civil rights which most western Christian based countries have included in their constitution: The freedom of religion...
The last 5 commandments are indeed good rules, but also quite obvious as they seem minimum/basic guidelines for any society. It would seem to me that guidelines like the code of Hammurabi (which is older then the ten commandments) is a much better suited moral guide as it also deals in things like strict guidelines for slavery and woman's rights.

On a side note it seems to me that the ten commandments that are always presented as such, aren't the rules Mozes brought down from the mountain on 2 stone tablets. The first pair was in his anger shattered by Mozes and in Exodus 34 God decides to recreate those tablets. But the rules God mentiones in Exodus 34 are quite weird and nothing like the ten commandments people often talk about...

- "nobody is good enough by God's standard" This is most definitively true. Especially when you consider that at least two of the forbidden acts can happen subconscient...
But this seems quite logical too me. If you build a religion around guilt and forgiveness, the first thing you would need to do is create conditions in which everybody is guilty...

These are just a few thing which I see different then Ray...

[andrewshanks]

I didn't want this taken private so re-post it here:-

Andrew Shanks
Well Professor Dawkins, I get my moral compass from religion. Specifically, I get my moral compass from the Bible. But, unlike you, I understand the Bible. So I don't believe that God wants us to pass laws so that adulterers or Sabbath breakers, or idol worshippers be stoned.

Lars Nilsson
to Andrew Shanks So you nit pick the bible?

Andrew Shanks
to Lars Nilsson No, that's what Prof Dawkins does, shamelessly.

Lars Nilsson
to Andrew Shanks No that's what you do when you don't stone idol worshippers.
Also slavery is endorsed in the bible. Very moral indeed.

Andrew Shanks
to Lars Nilsson Sorry, Lars, but you don't understand the Bible either.

Lars Nilsson
to Andrew Shanks Understand? Is it the words of god or not? If not, who decides what they mean?

Andrew Shanks
to Lars Nilsson

LN - "Is it the words of god or not? If not, who decides what they mean?"

That is a peculiar thing to say.

Does the understanding of a text change depending on who wrote it?? You are Lars Nilsson, not Genghis Khan. If Genghis Khan wrote exactly the same as you would that alter the meaning of the words???

You are not God. Does that throw open an invitation to me and everyone else to interpret your words which ever way I choose? Words have meaning, and we should seek to understand them the way they are.

When seeking to understanding the Bible, context matters


The Bible is a big book, not least, so that we do not mistake its meaning. There are obvious rules for interpreting the Bible, one is to understand a passage from the purpose of the book in which it is written. There are 66 books in the Bible, and they do not all serve the same purpose. For instance:-

The words of the Teacher, son of David, King in Jerusalem:-
“Meaningless! Meaningless!”
says the Teacher.
“Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.”

This passage is in Ecclesiastes chapter 1 verses 1 and 2 (New International Version) in the Old Testament. It is written by King Solomon (or, if you insist, claims to be written by King Solomon). But more to my point, it is written in the Bible. Does that mean the Bible teaches that everything is meaningless or futile or pointless or vain? Well, it says so here so that is what the Bible teaches! Right??

The writer, who I believe is King Solomon and writing under inspiration of God, writes Ecclesiastes with two hats, alternating the hats throughout the book. One hat has written on it "Theist", the other hat has written on it "Wise Atheist". When wearing the "Wise Atheist" hat he tries to make sense of the world round him: he looks for meaning, ultimate meaning, and purpose in the world and in life as an atheist. Yes, someone imagining there is no God has written part of the Bible. So when he says that everything is meaningless he is speaking as the Wise Atheist: and saying "Since there is no God, life, and everything in it, ultimately has no meaning or purpose".

You cannot understand Ecclesiastes unless you understand and accept this interpretive format. And if you fail to appreciate and apply this interpretive form then you will fail to grasp the meaning of the book and several passages within the book. So when Jehovah's Witnesses confidently assert that the soul does not survive death because "the dead know not anything" (Ecclesiastes 9:6) they are failing to interpret that passage within the context of the interpretive format for the whole book.

But the book of Ecclesiastes itself does NOT tell us its interpretive format described above. We have to discover it for ourselves (or hear it from someone who knows). The meaning of Bible passages is like treasure: some treasure is lying on the surface of the ground, but for some treasure, you have to get working and dig. Where would be the pleasure of getting to know the Bible if the Bible spoon-fed everything to us as if we are little children?

The STONING of ADULTERERS, and IDOL WORSHIPPERS, etc, also has to be interpreted within the context of the book in which it is written. These things are written in the Old Testament, as laws to the Israelite nation, and only the Israelite nation: they are simply not intended for all time, for every nation. If some, who for all I know are true Christians, believe that they ARE intended for all time, they are wrong (eg the Dominion Theology exponents in the USA). They are failing to grasp the intention of the giving of these laws to Israel.

The Old Testament Israelite nation is a type of the New Testament Church. (You might know the theological meaning of the word "type"; vaguely, it means picture, representation, a similar thing. The Bible is full of types especially in the Old Testament and the anti-types are in the New Testament: the anti-type is the thing being pictured. The main anti-types are Jesus Christ, the substitutionary death of Christ, and the Church universal.)

In short, what is the New Testament age equivalent to STONING OF ADULTERERS or IDOL WORSHIPPERS in the Old Testament? The New Testament equivalent is excommunication from the local church fellowship. Terrifying, eh?? What does excommunication mean? It means you can no longer take communion (or the Lord's Supper or the eucharist) or be considered part of the Christian community until you have expressed your repentance, until there is reasonable grounds for believing you have repented from your adultery, idol worship, etc. (I'm sure you are truly paralysed with fear by now.)

I could write a lot more, but I don't know if you or anyone else is prepared to read. I admit I haven't provided enough information for you to see that what I write is true, but how much are you prepared to take?

Anyway, as I said, context matters.



Lars Nilsson
to Andrew Shanks So you "interpret" and "understand" the bible?
What makes you ignore the horrible parts?


Andrew Shanks
to Lars Nilsson There are a lot of horrible things because we are sinners. Does that mean God approves of them?

Take Lot's appeal to the Sodomites:

"I have two daughters which have not known a man, let me bring them out to you and do ye to them as is good in your eyes, only unto these men do nothing, for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof" (ie they entered my house to have my protection) Genesis 19:8.

Lot was a godly man. Does that mean that God approved of what Lot said? Did Lot say it because it was the right thing to say? Lars, seriously, what do you think? Or, did Lot not care for his daughters? Rather, does not Lot's appeal to the men suggest to us that Lot's godliness, and sensitivity to sin, were badly damaged by his choice to live near, and then in, Sodom?

The moral is, if you are a Christian, don't choose to live near Sodom if you can help it, for, if you do, you might end up in heaven - indeed, you WILL go to heaven if you are a true Christian - but your testimony before others in this world will be severely tarnished, perhaps ruined, and the world will blaspheme your God because of you. And, maybe, because of you, they will blaspheme your God many centuries after you have departed this world.

The wonder here is, as ever, the gracious lovingkindness and mercy of God who, despite Lot's sinful choices and debauched sense of right and wrong, did not disown Lot, but saved him, and called him "just" and "righteous", meaning a saved child of God (2 Peter 2:6-9). God is never ashamed to own us as His children who believe in Jesus, though we often think He ought to be ashamed of us (Hebrews 11:16) and Jesus is not ashamed to call us brethren (Hebrews 2:11-12).

[bobleonheart]

"God wrote that law in stone for good reason... it's eternal"


Yeah, stone isn't eternal. It wears away and erodes to sand and dust over time due to shifting pressures from the environment.

[BenGLastreezy]

*Being Good for the sake of being Good* I never understood that, maybe atheists can clarify it for me, who's standard of goodness do we use to say that this is good and this is bad...!?

[trapdoormajesty]

2:00 Incredible! I came to this conclusion too that the secular world would accept this!

[peterfranklin]

"Ray Comfort versus Richard Dawkins"??

should be called, Richard Dawkins says correct things, and then Ray comfort responds, often completely incorrectly, sometimes with gross and moronic lies, but sometimes simply saying irrelevant things in a correcting tone.

[らいどう-cm]

Hey when is the next season of comfort