Ray Comfort #fundie

Ray Comfort #fundie onthebox.us

A criminal was once arrested for a hennas crime. Even though the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming, he wanted to defend himself rather than have faith in professionals. He decided to the following defense. 1. He had never seen the judge, so he concluded that he didn't exist. 2. The judge that he didn't believe existed, was immoral. 3. The law books were full of contradictions. 4. The criminal, despite his crimes and guilt, thought he was a good person.

How true are the words "He who defends himself in court has a fool for a client."

71 comments

old comment by anothga

1. Here's the catch - down on Earth, judges are supposed to show thmselves in the court. If they don't, the trial is never going to happen to begin with. God, obviously, does not reflect this.

2. That may or may not actually be true, however, bringing up this point, Ray, makes no sense since human judges don't actually have any authority to come up with new laws, unlike your hypocritical God.

3. This point would be quickly dismissed in real life, since any lawman can prove it's not true. Bible, on the other hand...

4. A crime is something factual and properly defined. Sin is not.

And, of course, none of these points actually make any of our objections any less valid.

old comment by Vifibi

1. Not only have we never seen "The Judge," we've no evidence he exists, no reason to believe he does, nor any reason to believe we did anything wrong (since, y'know, we're not on fucking trial).

2. If I had heard of a judge who routinely sends people to jail just for the "crime" of "not liking him," then yeah, I'd say he's immoral. And if god was a just judge, he'd excuse himself from ALL cases, since he'd be too partial to preside any of them, no?

3. Yep. They are. Or have you never eaten shellfish? Or married your brother's widow?

4.: Innocent until proven guilty, without a shadow of a reasonable doubt. Presumption of Innocence > Your god.

How true are the words "He who believes he knows everything knows nothing at all..."

old comment by Passerby

If a judge cannot be seen or heard, they cannot render meaningful judgement.

If the judge is themself a criminal with an obvious bias they cannot be trusted to be fair or impartial in their role.

If a law book makes no sense, the laws are unfair, unenforcable, or both.

Take a look at your bible Ray, if you can slaughter entire cities, dash babies against rocks, take young girls as sex slaves, pillage, burn, and mark people for death without the slightest pangs of guilt you are not a good person. Hurting people because you have a corrupt judge that you cannot see or hear supposedly giving you the okay despite the law (which that same corrupt judge set down) clearly stating that you shouldn't be doing any of that shit does not change that you are hurting people.

old comment by Raspberry

LAKEWOOD, Colo. - It sounds like the start of a bad joke, but it was actually for a good cause.

A gorilla and a banana were walking across crosswalks in Lakewood Tuesday morning.

The goal was to remind drivers that many children will be out walking in costume on Friday [Halloween] and that pedestrians have the right of way in a crosswalk.

"If you don't see a banana being chased by a gorilla crossing the street, are you gonna see that 4-foot-tall kid?" asked Lakewood Officer Jeromy Rohling.

As AIRTRACKER 7 flew over the scene outside Dunstan Middle School at 7:16 a.m., we watched the gorilla and banana step into the crosswalk and a car go past them. Seconds later, a Lakewood Police officer was pulling that driver over. See the video above.

"I just wanna make sure people are paying attention to kids going across the street -- make sure they are stopping, looing, seeing what's going on before they go through," said Officer Michael Schmidt.

Operation Crosswalk started with the gorilla and banana walking the crosswalks around Dunstan Middle School, then they were going to Bear Creek K-8 and Molholm Elementary School, Lakewood Police said.

image

(Sauce) *typo in original

old comment by freako104

Except the following:

1) He may not have seen the judge but he shohld be aware the judge is real otherwise it is a bullshit kangaroo court. Regardless of whether he believes judge is real, there would be some record of what he has done. With your god we only have the stories of bronze age goat herders.

2) Ray Comfort analogies are always crap.

3) saying judge is immoral will not help defense. If we look at judge record we can ascertain he is or not. If we have to use Bible, god commands unbelievers slaughtered. He commands homosexuals killed by stoning. Not to mention that if the Bible was truth he flooded the world. And people hide behind it and use it to justify hate. If thatvis what we go by then yes judge is immoral. If all people are guilty, and judge says regardless of what your crimes were, no matter how heinous, only select few get off and people of lesser crimes punished far more harshly would be an unjust and yes immoral god.

4) if law books contradictory then client needs to be informed of which laws are and are not in effect. And many Christians themselves quote OT then say it is not in effect when it is pointed out the calls for killing in OT. So once again kangaroo court.

4) That would depend on things. Perhaps his crime was imaginairy like sin. Perhaps be stole money to survive. And as per another of your analogical failures as judge: the some that get by have to be Christian. I have seen Christians that envy the Taliban and pine for a theocracy. They would have unbelievers killed and homosexuals if they could. Some have killed doctors who performed abortions. Others have killed homosexuals. While there are non Christians who did live a good life but judge does not care. Quite a judge.

5) In this court client got to choose to defend self. According to your religion god does not supply lawyer. Your god forced it then called him a fool.

6) Ray Comfort analogies.

old comment by keppie

1. I may never have seen the judge on my case, but I will see him or her when the case begins, and s/he can provide evidence s/he has the authority to preside.
2. If I become aware of misconduct on my judge's part, I will indeed request a different judge.
3. If there are contradictions in the law, I am certainly justified in using them in my defense. For example, if there is confusion regarding which version of a law or its interpretation, I can and will use that in my defense.
4. My conduct aside from the case at hand may indeed be considered in sentencing and possibly even in determining my guilt (character witnesses).
5. Your definition of "heinous" crime needs some work.

And most importantly: except in a few cases, I must be tried and convicted within a reasonable time of my crimes. It is not permissible to wait until the end of my life to do so. Nor is "believing" in someone an acceptable substitute for any sentence I might be assigned. I will have to pay a fine, restitution, and/or jail time. I can't get out of jail by kneeling before the judge.

I only agree with one point: if accused a "heinous" crime, I'd certainly have an attorney. But I'm not going to hire an attorney who supposedly existed 2000 years ago.

old comment by

Even though the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming, he wanted to defend himself rather than have faith in professionals.

But Ray... there is no trial. Everyone is guilty because of what someone else did... and that is one of the most immoral judgements ever.

How true are the words "He who defends himself in court has a fool for a client."

Ray, it's "He who represents himself in court has a fool for a client." and since God is representing himself in the prosecution AND as judge, you're calling God a fool. (and a clear conflict of interest in there... the judge is also the prosecutor AND the one who came up with the laws AND he's also the jury AND he's the executioner... Outstandingly immoral of God that)

Ray Comfort #fundie onthebox.us

71 comments

Confused?