Sapient's response to Ray's email.

Dave_G's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2007-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Sapient's response to Ray's email.

Dave_G wrote:

Our primary goal in doing the debate was to preach the gospel to the countless people who would be watching in their homes, because it is the gospel that is "the power of God unto salvation" (see Romans 1:16).

From the email of Ray Comfort:

"I've been thinking. How about we promote this as me saying:
"I can prove God's existence. Absolutely, scientifically, without the mention of faith or the Bible." That would stir interest from both the Christian and secular community.

So Rays main intent was to "share the gospel" yet he told me his intent was to prove God scientifically without invoking faith or the bible. Got it. Bearing false witness... I get it. (this is the best argument Ray has made against Christianity so far)

Not Keeping my Word

There seems to be some confusion about the structure of the debate. A press release headline was changed, stating this would be a "Bible-less debate." That was never the case. In fact, I provided Brian (the atheist) with a copy of my outline some time before the debate. He knew that I would begin by demonstrating God's existence without using the Bible or faith (ie. creation proves there is a Creator). He then knew that I would then open up the Ten Commandments (ie. conscience proves there is a moral law and thus a Law Giver). Finally, he also knew that I would end with the gospel. He knew I planned to move from a presentation of the general evidence of God to specific proof about Jesus Christ. So it greatly puzzled us that Brian feigned "shock" when he heard it.

So... I looked back at the emails and here's what I have...

"My outline would be in three points:

Creation (the old "watchmaker" argument), Conscience (we all have one), Commandments (these stir the conscience)."
That's the outline to his argument he sent. When he sent it I never expected that 8 of his 13 minutes would be spent on faith and commandment. I also wasn't sure how he'd work the commandments in, I was thinking maybe he made an error in what he was putting in his outline, or maybe he was even making a joke of some sort. What I am sure about it is that Ray lobbied for more time with us and ABC claiming "I need more than 15 minutes to make my case." We're assuming this case was "prove God scientifically without invoking faith or the bible." Because of this we yielded a large chunk of our time to Ray, only to watch him squander the MAJORITY on exactly what he said he wouldn't do. Had Ray mentioned very briefly the ten commandments in a scientific sense without invoking faithb or going on long bible diatribes in his opening statement I wouldn't have been surprised, however Rays abuse of the system shows a calculated deceitfulness that can only be described as "lying for Christ." So the question is... Are Ray and Kirk the sort of "hypocrites" that God can sniff out and will eventually end up in hell? Ray and Kirk like to call others hypocrites... I think I'll do it for them. See you in hell Ray and Kirk.

Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
So, a Christian broke his

So, a Christian broke his word. Let's see here. Richard I promised to allow the muslims out of Acre without molestation, but he killed them all instead. King Henri IV promised to leave calvinism for the French throne, which he failed to do. Emperor Charles V agreed to allow Luther's converts a safe passage from Holstein to England, who he chose to imprison anyway.


Hmmmmm.  Heads of State failed to stick to their word.  Why would this joker do otherwise.  Surprise should not have been on his side.

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer