Pray for Ray Comfort's Website.

[Johny Joe Hold]

Evangelist Ray Comfort's godly FaceBook page has been inundated with smart-assed atheists. They have bombared his site so he can barely keep up and has made a plea to Christians to help.

As he says, "Atheists think they are God's gift to intellectualism."

If you can't go to Ray's FaceBook page, pray that those who can have the strength to stand up to atheist homers.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/christians-recruited-to-battle-atheists-on-facebook-by-evangelist-ray-comfort-90780/

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Pray for Ray Comfort's Website.

According to the article,

In regards to the influx of atheists visiting his page, he said, "I guess they are bored with their godless life. Atheists aren't the intellectuals they think they are. They think there's no proof for the existence of God. They are like fish in the ocean saying that there's no proof that water exists. They make mindless statements, such as there's no evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed. I guess they don't know what year it is."

Is it true atheists don't even know things like what year it is? Do they know anything, or are they simply walking around waiting for their God-given instincts to kick in so they can deny they are God-given instincts?

In regards to engaging with atheists, Comfort added some caution. "You will need a lot of patience because many show up as though they are God's intellectual gift to the world. They are extremely arrogant, very condescending, they say things that aren't true, and they use worn out arguments. My advice is to wait for a minute to calm down, and then show them love and respect.

This is exactly what it looks like on our Godly forum! Atheists come here angry, arrogant, ignorant, and in return are received by True Christians™ who show them Biblical love and respect.

I love you, my fellow True Christians™!

[BelieverInGod]

Re: Pray for Ray Comfort's Website.

Is he under any more attack than we are?

Day in and day out we're attacked.

My favorite is when the "atheist" tells us we're going to "burn in Hell" for teaching the Bible. Yeah, you don't "believe" in God, but somehow we're the ones that are going to end up "in Hell"

You can't tell me that deep down they don't really believe.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: Pray for Ray Comfort's Website.

I see this as the start of the Final Battle - Armageddon! The forces of The Lord v. The forces of Darkness! Mr Comfort is well known as a tool in The Lord's Ministry - he has been chosen from amongst many - Revelations is upon us!

Rally to the site! Rally to Witness the Truth of the Lord! Rally to be on the side of Jesus Who will ride a White Horse into Battle!

You heard it here first!

[Mistress Cookie]

Re: Pray for Ray Comfort's Website.

What an utterly insulting post at that site!!!!

RE: "God exists, because matter can't make ITSELF." You might wanna re-think your theory. It's a circular fallacy. Your argument is that "something can not be created out of nothing" (tired and boring argument). Therefore (A) god must have "poofed" it into existence. Here's where your argument takes a nose dive; Who created your god? Some other god with infinite powers +1? And who created that god? Some god with infinite powers +2? ( etc, etc, etc.) Of course, the god who created your god is going to be pissed beyond belief that you're worshiping his creation and not him, ad infinitium.

When we leave this God™ly site, we encounter such NEEDLESSLY nasty, crackerjack things!!!
.

[BelieverInGod]

Re: Pray for Ray Comfort's Website.

What an utterly insulting post at that site!!!!



When we leave this God™ly site, we encounter such nasty things!!!
.

So what created the Big Bang? Oh right, nothing. But that's okay because it's "their nothing" and not God.

The atheists are restless, and it's not even October.

[Mistress Cookie]

Re: Pray for Ray Comfort's Website.

All I know is:


They've been warned.

[Shimei]

Re: Pray for Ray Comfort's Website.

What an utterly insulting post at that site!!!!

RE: "God exists, because matter can't make ITSELF." You might wanna re-think your theory. It's a circular fallacy. Your argument is that "something can not be created out of nothing" (tired and boring argument). Therefore (A) god must have "poofed" it into existence. Here's where your argument takes a nose dive; Who created your god? Some other god with infinite powers +1? And who created that god? Some god with infinite powers +2? ( etc, etc, etc.) Of course, the god who created your god is going to be pissed beyond belief that you're worshiping his creation and not him, ad infinitium.

When we leave this God™ly site, we encounter such NEEDLESSLY nasty, crackerjack things!!!
.

The whole multiverse thing reminds me of other religions when gods beget gods. Look at the extent of the imagination one must go to length in creating all kinds of acrobatics. The burden of proof is upon them, despite this comment unwitting attempt to shift the burden upon the testimony of the Bible. I suspect that there are many a keyboards being head butted over this battle for the beginning in the atheistic camp.

Vilenkin’s findings:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.

[Jack O'fagan]

Re: Pray for Ray Comfort's Website.

What an utterly insulting post at that site!!!!

When we leave this God™ly site, we encounter such NEEDLESSLY nasty, crackerjack things!!!
.

Atheists always try to complicate things. If they did a little bit of research questions such as how did God start to exist just wouldn't come up. Dr William Lane Craig answers the question very succinctly.

The kalam cosmological argument uses the phrase “begins to exist.” For those who wonder what that means I sometimes use the expression “comes into being” as a synonym. We can explicate this last notion as follows: for any entity e and time t,
e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists at t, (ii) tee exists timelessly, and (iv) e’s existing at tFrom clauses (i) and (ii), Jan, you can see that in order for e to begin to exist there is no need for there to be a time prior to t at which e does not exist. If that were the case, then it would be true by definition that time did not begin to exist, which is surely a matter to be settled by investigation, not definition!
As for your question, Rob, clause (iii) precludes God’s beginning to exist if He enters time at the moment of creation from a state of timelessness sans creation. This result is intuitive because God, if He exists timelessly sans creation, doesn’t begin to exist or come into being at the moment of creation!
Clause (iv), Jan, is what gives us temporal becoming as opposed to mere static existence. Let me explain what I mean by a “tensed fact.” We’re all familiar with tense as it plays a role in language. In English we normally express tense by inflecting the verb of a sentence so as to express the past, present, or future tense. Although most of our ordinary language is tensed, there are occasions on which we employ sentences which are grammatically in the present tense to express what are really tenseless truths. For example, we say such things as “Lady Macbeth commits suicide in Act V. scene v,” “The glass breaks easily,” or “The area of a circle is πr2.” It’s evident that the verbs in these sentences are really tenseless because it would be wrong-headed to replace them by the present tense equivalent of “is + (present participle),” for example, “is committing,” “is breaking,” and so forth. Such a substitution would render some of these true sentences plainly false.
The function of tense is to locate something in relation to the present. This can be done not only by means of verbs, but also by means of temporal indexical expressions like “today,” “now,” “three days ago.” Such tensed expressions differ radically from expressions using clock-times or dates, which are tenseless. “January 3, 1812” invariably refers to the same day, whether it is past, present, or future; whereas temporal indexical expressions like “yesterday,” “today,” or “tomorrow” depend upon the context of their utterance for what day they refer to.
Dates can therefore be employed in conjunction with tenseless verbs to locate things tenselessly in time. For example, we can state, “In 1960 John Kennedy pledges to send a man to the moon before the end of the decade” (the italics being a stylistic convention to show that the verb is tenseless). This sentence expresses a tenseless fact and is therefore always true. Notice that even if you knew this truth, you wouldn’t know whether Kennedy has issued his pledge unless you also knew whether 1960 was past. By contrast, if we replaced the tenseless verb with the past-tensed verb “pledged,” then we would know that the event referred to has happened. This tensed sentence would, however, not always be true: prior to 1960 it would be false. Prior to 1960 the tensed verb would have to be the future-tense “will pledge” if the sentence is to be true. In contrast to tenseless sentences, then, tensed sentences serve to locate things in time relative to the present and so may change their truth value.
The salient point of all this is that in addition to tenseless facts, there also appear to be tensed facts. The information conveyed by a tensed sentence concerns not just tenseless facts, but also tensed facts as well, facts about how something is related to the present. Thus, what is a fact at one moment may not be a fact at another moment. It is now a fact that the U.S. is at war in Afghanistan; but in a few years that may no longer be a fact. Thus the body of tensed facts is constantly changing.
Now if there are tensed facts, then time itself is tensed. That is to say, the moments of time are really past, present, or future, independently of our subjective experience of time. Tense is not merely a feature of human language and experience but is an objective feature of reality. It is an objective fact, for example, that Columbus’ voyage in 1492 is over; it’s past. Therefore, 1492 is itself past, since the voyage was located at that time. The reality of tensed facts therefore entails a tensed theory of time, usually called an A-Theory of time in the philosophical literature. One of the implications of an A-Theory of time is the objective reality of temporal becoming. Things come into and go out of existence. Things that are real exist wholly in the present and endure through time from one present moment to the next. Thus, on an A-Theory of time there is a dynamism about reality, a constant becoming of reality in time.
By contrast, on a tenseless or B-Theory of time there really are no tensed facts. The factual content of sentences containing tensed verbs and temporal indexicals includes only the tenseless locations (dates, clock times) and tenseless relations (earlier than, simultaneous with, and later than) of events. Linguistic tense is an ego-centric feature of language users. It serves only to express the subjective perspective of the user. But in objective reality there is no “now” in the world. Everything just exists tenselessly. So according to the B-Theory of time, all things and events in time are equally existent. If there were no minds, there would be no past, present, or future. There would be just the four-dimensional space-time universe existing en bloc. It therefore follows that there is no temporal becoming. Temporal becoming is an illusion of human consciousness. Nothing in the space-time block ever comes into or goes out of being, nor does the space-time block as a whole come into being or pass away. On a theistic view it co-exists timelessly with God.
The kalam cosmological argument presupposes from start to finish an A-theory of time. Things do not come into being without a cause. If the universe is finite in the past, then it began to exist in the sense that it came into being. The first moment of creation is not a tenseless instant at the head of a four-dimensional block but an evanescent moment that came to be and has passed away. On a B-Theory of time God is the Creator of the universe in the sense that the whole block universe and everything in it depends upon God for its existence. The B-Theorist’s affirmation that God brought the universe into being out of nothing at some moment in the finite past can at best mean that God tenselessly sustains the universe in being and that there is (tenselessly) a moment which is separated from any other moment of time by a finite interval of time and before which no moment of comparable duration exists. The universe began to exist only in the sense that the tenselessly existing block universe has a front edge. It has a beginning only in the sense that a yardstick has a beginning. There is in the actual world no state of affairs of God existing alone without the space-time universe. God never really brings the universe into being; as a whole it co-exists timelessly with Him.


YIC

Jack

[Johny Joe Hold]

Re: Pray for Ray Comfort's Website.

Atheists always try to complicate things. If they did a little bit of research questions such as how did God start to exist just wouldn't come up. Dr William Lane Craig answers the question very succinctly.

Jack

I read through that, Brother Jack. It makes perfect sense. No smart-assed atheist could ever compete with that argument.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: Pray for Ray Comfort's Website.

I read through that, Brother Jack. It makes perfect sense. No smart-assed atheist could ever compete with that argument.

Indeed it does make perfect sense! Thank you Brother O'fagan, for printing this all out for us! I admit, Dr. William Lane Craig makes science sound simple enough for even me to understand it!

[Mistress Cookie]

Re: Pray for Ray Comfort's Website.

.
Atheists always try to complicate things. If they did a little bit of research questions such as how did God start to exist just wouldn't come up. Dr William Lane Craig answers the question very succinctly...

("The kalam cosmological argument uses the phrase “begins to exist.” For those who wonder what that means I sometimes use the expression “comes into being” as a synonym. We can explicate this last notion as follows: for any entity e and time t, e comes into being at t if and only if (i) e exists...etc. etc.")
.

Thank goodness for plainspoken men like Dr. Bill.

Where's their "science" now?

[John Creeser]

Re: Pray for Ray Comfort's Website.

I went to Mr. Comforts FB page today and I am a bit confused. if he is calling out to Christians to help with the influx of unsaved scum, why would he post something like this?

For Atheists Only: We have permanently banned more than 700 atheists for cussing and blasphemy. I’m honored to have you here and would love it if I never have to ban anyone ever again. So please tell your atheist friends that burst onto the scene with a potty-mouth--never to be seen again--that what they consider to be “mild” words like “cr-p,” “OMG,” “Jebus,” “d-mn,” “BS,” etc., qualify as banning material. Oh…and there’s one other word that for some reason I don’t like: “banana.”

I chastised him by quoting:

Leviticus 10:10 And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean;

So which is Ray?

[Johny Joe Hold]

Re: Pray for Ray Comfort's Website.

I went to Mr. Comforts FB page today and I am a bit confused. if he is calling out to Christians to help with the influx of unsaved scum, why would he post something like this?




I chastised him by quoting:

Leviticus 10:10 And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean;

So which is Ray?

Good question, Brother Creeser. Those who run this Landover Baptist site have a different policy than Ray. Ray bans those terrible words immediately. Our Godly admins wait a few posts before banning.