Ray Comfort #fundie

Ray Comfort #fundie facebook.com

After seeing rat droppings in our chicken coop we concluded that we have a problem with rats. Evidence has a way of forcing conclusions.

Here now is a challenge to any skeptic of Christianity. Read the Gospel of John.

If you put aside your presuppositions and read it with an open mind, you will be forced into the conclusion that if Jesus of Nazareth was lying, it flies in the face of every word He uttered about morality and truth.

To ignore that evidence would be like standing in the heat of the Sahara and concluding that the sun is cold.

61 comments

old comment by Nomen Nescio

no, actually, Miles does not have the burden of proof here. his statement may be controversial, but that's irrelevant; the burden of proof is upon the positive claimant. it's remarkably much harder to prove that a hypothetical person never existed than to prove that one did.

that said, there is some good evidence to link the personage of "Jesus of Nazareth" to other, contemporary and earlier, characters of religious dogma who are generally considered mythological. a lot of the NT's description of him was either borrowed wholesale from other middle eastern religions or so heavily influenced by them as to make any real person they may have been based on unrecognizable.

there's also the curious matter of John Frum, the messianic figure of the Pacific cargo cults. if he were a real person, he would have lived some time in the 1930s; the cargo cults were known and investigated not long after that time period. were he real, one would think it should have been possible for anthropologists investigating the area and religion only thirty or forty years later (as happened) to find some evidence of that fact. today, within still living memory of that time period, we have no way of knowing if John Frum was real or merely myth. i remind you that the new testament accounts postdate their claimed events by centuries.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

We can see the Sahara we're standing on. It may be 93 million miles away, but we have shitloads of evidence that the Sun exists; just ask NASA/JPL.

And although it doesn't physically exist, we can see that rainbow after a rain shower, and the sun comes out.

Something that doesn't exist, but can be seen. If that alone - a Rainbow - doesn't completely annihilate the concept of the 'Spiritual'/'Supernatural', then the fact that Jesus lied: 'Do unto others as they do unto you': what had those moneylenders in the temple perasonally done to him, to justify his use of violence - whipping - against them, being the least of his, never mind your, problems, Mr. Crocoduck.

Now go eat your banana, Ray Cumfart. 'Truth'? There are tens of thousands of denominations of Christianity, each one claiming to have the 'Truth'; there are those that you're going to Hell for not accepting their 'Truth'.

When asked by Pilate 'What is Truth?', Jesus couldn't answer, so that alone destroys the whole concept of 'Truth'. And when not even the Bible itself is admissable as evidence in a court of law, i.e. Kitzmiller vs. Dover, (thus the defence being reduced to the pseudo-science of (Un)'Intelligent Design', Creationism by Stealth, then not even an 'open' mind will accept lies, otherwise, why didn't said defence just say 'Godidit?'), then the fact that Materialism/Secularism/Atheism holds all the aces in the grand 'Religion vs. Atheism' poker game - as in evidence - should tell you something.

...after all, what's stopping your so-called 'Omnipotent' God from doing a Morgan Freeman in the Jim Carrey film "Bruce Almighty, eh Ray...?!

Aye, and that's the entire debate-destroying rub, indeed. You lot are reduced to needing 'evidence', so what's happened to 'Faith'? Or do you know deep down that 'Faith' sounds just like FAIL, and ultimately, you cannot spell 'Belief' without the word LIE...?!

We Atheists have the evidence. We win. Every time [/Kitzmiller vs. Dover]. So-called subjective* 'Truth'? Pfft. Just the facts, ma'am. [/"Dragnet"]

*- 'What's True, is true for you'

-L. Ron Hubbard, Founder of $cientology

So just that quote alone destroys the concept of 'Truth'; 2+2=5, according to O'Brien, the Inner Party & Big Brother [/"1984"], otherwise you & all your ilk are forced to admit that $cientology is better than Christainity, David Miscavige is Jesus, and L. Ron Hubbard is superior to God.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

#1671189 being unable to counter Creedence Leonore Gielgud's argument, via a post in 4chan (or another similar board) - against fundie religion as a whole, never mind relative to Ray Cumfart's quote - thus reduced to saying what he posted was 'Classy'.

Classy.

...oh, and b4 any possible reply/spergy counter by pic macro etc by #1671189:

image

The Argument Annihilator is always prepared.

You know the only possible way you can prove me wrong about you being the inferior subhuman retard you've already proved yourself to be, #1671189: By not replying to this or any other post in FSTDT. EVER.

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=101266&Page=5#1670286

http://www.fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=101266&Page=6#1670554

...or do you want to prove me right about you, little mentally handicapped sperglord & Ray Cumfart-rimmer? Don't let me stop you, subhuman. [/paradox]

old comment by

Read the Gospel of John.

Read it... read the forged part at the end of it too... know enough about it to know that it wasn't written by John, and that no-one knows who it was written by.

I also know enough to recognise that even today, with video/audio recording technology, it can take just DAYS for complete bullshit to propagate itself around any town you care to name.

If you put aside your presuppositions and read it with an open mind

Except the presup that the Bible is 100% accurate and true, right?

you will be forced into the conclusion that if Jesus of Nazareth was lying, it flies in the face of every word He uttered about morality and truth.

First, show that the Bible is 100% accurate and true... you can't because there are known forged passages in there, including in John.

Second, YOU are flying in the face of what Jesus said about morality and truth... since you continually lie about atheism..

And bananas...

And just how much material wealth have you amassed? Bet Jesus really likes rich people, right?

old comment by birdboy2000

Jesus probably existed. Of the religions that originated in well-documented, historic times (as opposed to more ancient faiths like Hinduism, Judaism, and most pagan religions) that claim a founder, the vast majority of them had an actual founder - John Frum is the exception, not the rule.

Joseph Smith, Muhammad, and the Baha'u'llah's existences are all pretty well documented, as are those of less successful messiah claimants, such as Sabbatai Zevi or Hong Xiuquan.

The history of Christianity - a religion which appeared out of nowhere, inspired passionate devotion, and fragmented soon after its leader's death (or in his case, ascension if you believe that part) with all the sects agreeing on the divinity of Jesus and his teachings if nothing else - suggests there was an actual Jesus to found the thing.

This does not, however, mean he could walk on water, turn water into wine, or come back from the dead.

Maybe Jesus was lying. Or maybe his followers lied about him and embellished his deeds - once you throw out the idea that the Bible's the inerrant word of god, it's pretty easy to find falsehoods in there with no malice on Jesus' part.

I can make some statements about morality and ethics too. If that's evidence that I am divine, feel free to worship me, but I assure you that I am not worthy and only a human. But at least it's possible to verify that I exist and am alive. That old text fails to produce such evidence. False equivalence in the argument, thus false initial premise: there's physical evidence for your rat in your example, not only claims.

If you put aside your presuppositions and read it with an open mind, you will be forced into the conclusion that if Jesus of Nazareth was lying, it flies in the face of every word He uttered about morality and truth.

So what? Surely, even you are aware of the concept of hypocrisy.

A more detailed response.

Your argument is “Jesus taught that lying is wrong, so his theology must have been true.”

However, taking what you are told at face value is not open-minded, but gullible. Let me give a few alternative explanations:

1. Jesus distinguished between lying and rhetorical devices like metaphors and hyperbole, which he evidently used to illustrate his points.
2. Jesus honestly preached what he believed, but his beliefs were not true.
3. Jesus was a hypocrite.
4. Jesus did not actually preach the theology attributed to him, that was inserted by the author, the oral tradition he was working on and/or later editors.
5. Jesus preached the truth, but he was misunderstood, misremembered and/or misinterpreted, resulted in the Gospels giving an inaccurate account of his teachings.
6. The Gospel is a deliberate fabrication (Lying for Jesus).

Actually, let’s be extra open-minded:
7. The Gospel is actually a work of fiction. What Jesus (who may or not have existed - after all, historical fiction featuring real historical people is and already was back then very much a thing) is true in the context of the story, but not (necessarily) in real life - as an actor, you really ought to be familiar with the concept. Unfortunately, later generations lost the context that it was a work of fiction, mistook it for a real biography of Jesus and included it in the Canon.
8. Jesus did not actually preach the condemnation of lying attributed to him, that was inserted by the author, the oral tradition he was working on and/or later editors.

These are certainly not the only possible hypotheses, and it is also very much possible - and indeed, most plausible - that the truth is any of the many combinations in which several or even all possibilities are true to some extent in one way or another. With so many possible other explanation, it is clear that it is Jesu divinity, not its negation, that is the extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.
Yet there is no such extraordinary evidence, but mounting evidence along many independent lines supporting each other from every single field of study, including the very study of the Bible itself, against it, and indeed in favour of naturalism.

@Bastethotep #130101

9. Jesus was a hologram, and... err drop this one.

Ray Comfort #fundie facebook.com

61 comments

Confused?