Talk:Rational Response Squad debate with Way of the Master

So, I'm reading through this transcript+commentary and everything seems fine. Until I come to this:

Also, if communism is the fault for the death of millions of people and mass despair, it is a Christian problem, not atheism. Christians believe the bible is the Word of God and everything in it is authored by this omniscient perfect being. And yet, we find biblical communism twice in the book of Acts (Acts 2 and Acts 4). Also, Jesus emphasized doing all that you can to help the poor — even to the point of him recommending that a rich man sell all of his possessions and give the money to the poor if he really wishes to get into heaven. It is no wonder, then, that any number of Christian groups have adopted ways of living which, while explicitly based upon biblical stories, are also expressions of communist ideals. Such groups include the Shakers, Mormons, Hutterites and more.

What the helll? This is a total non sequitur. In context, it's obvious that WotM is talking about Stalinist Communism in a historical context, not communism in general. Perceptron (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Working on it now. The point was to show that communism can lead to the deaths of people in both the religious and secular sense, but since Ray Comfort believes that the words of the Bible are perfect and came from God, he must admit that communism has a biblical background long before Karl Marx. Feredir28 (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Has Ray Comfort actually read Genesis?

"Conscience. According to Ray, God put within each of us conscience when God made us in his image. This separates us from the other animals since we have the ability to know right from wrong." According to Genesis, God did not actually give humanity a conscience so that we would know right from wrong. His original plan for us would have apparently deprived us all of the knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong. Whether it was only Adam and Eve who weren't allowed a conscience, or the rule was supposed to apply to all of us, I don't know, but it seems that humanity only gained the forbidden knowledge of good and evil by Defying God and breaking the rules He gave. We have the snake to thank for our self awareness and conscience - Not God (assuming of course that Genesis is accurate...). --Stickie 86.29.99.172 (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ray's TV analogy

Regarding that analogy, there would have been people 100 years previous to 2007 quite familiar to phonograph, telephone and cinema technologies, all of which were invented before 1907. And a person of reasonable intelligence and scientific bent who was an adult in 1907 could reasonably infer on being shown a television that it would be perfectly possible that television was a reasonable extrapolation of technology from the state of technology avaiable in his own time. Hell there was even a proto-television developed in 1884 by Paul Gottlieb Nipkow and Alexander Bain sucessfully transmitted images via telegraph in 1843. I wouldn't be suprised if a number of SF authors had precticted television or something very similar by 1907 either.

All this I posit just to how how moronic Ray Comfort's arguments are. 178.167.254.108 (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Falsehood in 4th Question: RRS

The claim that Herod slaughtered "thousands" of infants according to the Bible is false. All it says is: "Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men." (NKJV) "All its districts" is sometimes translated "all that land", but this still would probably refer only to the area of Bethlehem. Bethlehem was a tiny town, likely only five or six hundred people (cite. John Mcray, in The Case For Christ). Herod killed a wife and two sons. I doubt many people would notice that he killed a few dozen babies in a tiny town. Also, historians now agree that the Josephus passage is actually partly original, though the original version probably didn't call him the Christ, or make any claim about his resurrection. ^{— Unsigned, by: 69.54.140.150 / talk}