Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Friday, July 25, 2008

Ray's not even trying now...

We Know Better


"Two strikes against Heaven for me. No seas, no seafood. He would give me a perfect body then take away lust. That's just cruel." Craig

As one who doesn’t believe in God, you are perhaps mocking, but I will address the thought anyway. When the Bible says that there will be no more sea, it doesn’t say that there will be no more water. I can’t say for sure but there may be beautiful lakes, teaming with succulent fish. After the resurrection, Jesus was in His resurrected body, and prepared and (presumably) ate fish with His disciples (see John 21:9-13).

Your words reveal that, like most normal males, you live for sexual lust. It gives your sinful heart great pleasure, and you can’t think of a life without lusting for women. However, the miracle of conversion is that God takes our wicked and perverted hearts and gives us new desires. You are forgetting who it was made women in the first place. It was God. What you see in the beauty of a woman isn’t a glorified primate.

As Christians, we are still temped to lust, but we now know better. We now know that God sees lust as adultery, and He warns that those who give themselves to sexual perversion (lust) will end up in Hell.

When a sinner is born again, God washes away all of his sins. He is forgiven every perverted sexual thought and granted the gift of eternal life. What a fool he would be to give up his eternal salvation for the fleeting pleasures of lust. 0 comments


What a complete moron. He's already published this exact post on July 19th under the title Woman...the Glorified Primate. How long before it deletes it? And how long before someone writes "great post, Ray"? Pathetic.

22 comments:

  1. I'm commenting on my own post, but I so want to comment on this latest round of Ray's bullshit over there. I guess if Ray can't quote mine or just make shit up, he'll plagiarize himself. I don't think it's a lure. I just don't think he's quite that clever.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, the percentage of his posts that were based off something an atheist said was pretty high those last couple of months before we left. I guess he's just struggling for inspiration.

    This is still pretty pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The banana thing...THAT was pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rufus you're WRONG! :P

    It's not exactly the same. I've been waiting to see what happened to it ever since he posted it. He has made at least two revisions to it:

    #1
    As Christians, we are still tempted by the pleasure of lust, but we now know better.

    -TO-

    As Christians, we are still temped to lust, but we now know better.

    #2
    What a fool he would be to give up his eternal salvation (eternal life) for the fleeting pleasures of lust.

    -TO-

    What a fool he would be to give up his eternal salvation for the fleeting pleasures of lust.


    What's the point? I don't know. Perhaps it's to draw us out of the woodwork.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dis:

    My bad. Thanks. I stand corrected. Ray Comfort is the most original Christian apologist of all time. And I mean that. That's not a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I thought when I was reading this post that it sounded familiar.. What an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Self-plagiarizing for Jebus. But he probably doesn't think it's plagiarizing, just like he doesn't think he quote mines. I'll be surprised if any of his fellow believers mentions it. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if he deletes it. But I saved both of them, with the dates and times. And hey. At least this time, Ray can cite his sources.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's de javou all over again!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Rufus,

    Yeah, actually this might be the most academically honest thing he's written. It'd be nice if he referenced himself and gave a link to his original post.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. oops I posted that on the wrong thread

    ReplyDelete
  12. The real amusing part is, because of Ray's obsessive need to vet each and every post for (among other things) uncapitalized instances of the word "god", it's going to be a while before the Raytards manage to inform him of his boo-boo (assuming he isn't genuinely out of material, and is recycling old posts intentionally).

    So, because of Ray's oppressive posting policy, his screw-up will sit out there for at least an hour before it's caught. Ray is hoisted on his own petard.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I noticed that, too. Surely Ray hasn't run out material so soon?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Therine
    Ray never had material in the first place.
    His show is in a constant state of crap.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well, creationism really doesn't have any good material.
    I have a suggestion--Lee Strobel. Read any of his works, and you'll see why creationism fails.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ray posted that comment, what, about 6 hours ago? And he still hasn't let the latest batch of comments through. I'm looking forward to reading them. See if any believers caught it. And seeing what he'll say or do.

    ReplyDelete
  17. At least he reposted the cartoon too. I like that one. It just needs one change: the last word should be "real."

    ReplyDelete
  18. What a fucking punk! He deleted the post and put another one up, but some of the comments mention the one he doubled. Two people, Joshua S. Black and erikloza mentioned, and Terry Burton wrote "yes we know better". Such a pathetic loser. He slays me.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I would not say that Ray is not even trying now, he has never even try before.

    I am starting to get bored. Maybe we should start collecting the best explained answers to his recycled stuff. Post them when appropriate. What do you think?

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well, that's what happens when you have only one theme, one source, and no tools intellectually or methodically to find anything new. You can't get all Augustinas or Plantinga on them (assuming for a minute Ray could), because the simple-minded audience wouldn't understand and would have no idea how to discuss it. Would Ray assume that his audience's memory didn't last longer than a week or two? I don't know. I suspect he has his prepared posts all over his desktop and didn't look which ones he'd already posted before putting this one up.
    Dear Rayniacs, this sloppyness shows exactly what Ray thinks of you. He doesn't care. Buy his books and his DVDs, don't pay attention.

    ReplyDelete

Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.