Showing why belief in Christianity is rational
In his latest evangelistic movie “The Atheist Delusion – Why Millions Deny the Obvious” Ray Comfort is once again out among atheists in what I’d like to say is his inimitable style – but that would be a very inaccurate description. Because it is clear that Comfort has developed an easy to use approach that he’d like every Christian to use when confronted with atheist claims of “there’s no evidence of God”. Continue Reading
Is teaching and proclaiming God’s creation of the universe and all life relevant for today? Is the biblical proclamation – “In the beginning, God created … ” a message that 21st century people need to hear; or should we have the same focus as the apostle Paul who said – “I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified“? (1 Cor 2.2)
Some Christians see an insistence on adhering to the traditional creation account – that God created in six – 24 hour days about 6,000 years ago – as unnecessarily divisive. But adherence to any Biblical account can be divisive. Some Christians don’t believe, for example, that the New Testament witness of the day to worship is on Sunday (Acts 20.7) and insist on keeping the Old Testament practice of meeting on the Sabbath (Saturday). That has been an issue divisive enough to form separate denominations over. So the question of divisiveness is beside the point. It does not address the question of relevance. Also, since the divisiveness issue is an in house question (the house of God I mean) that has already been well addressed[1] I won’t spend time on it here.
Others say that for those who are lost, the account of creation is not a concern. They may have many concerns, but how the universe began is typically not one of them. I had that conversation with a pastor, who said of the many people he speaks to, creation is not an issue. And though not stated, the implication was that creationists spend too much time discussing things that are not of interest. Things such as evolution, the big bang, dinosaurs, the flood, the age of the earth, etc., etc. Perhaps he has a point. Perhaps at the point he speaks with people there is no interest in creation. But does that mean the issue is not there, lurking beneath the surface? Continue Reading
 “Audacity – Love can’t stay silent“ |
Ray Comfort delivers a winsome defense of traditional marriage while making a persuasive gospel presentation in his new movie “Audacity.” |
“For some, the legalization of gay marriage is good news. While others find it difficult to grasp. Regardless of what anyone thinks about the issue, gay marriage has become a present day reality that is spreading across America. Soon, to one degree or another each of us will have to respond in our own way to this current cultural revolution.”
With these words, a newscaster frames a question for both the main character – Peter, a young man, young in the faith; and the audience. The real question: how can a Christian lovingly and appropriately proclaim the truth of the faith while still witnessing with love?
That question is gently and deftly answered as the movie unfolds. As expected, “Audacity” author and evangelist Ray Comfort adapts and applies his “Way of the Master” evangelism questions and techniques to the timely topic of so called “gay marriage.” At about 50 minutes, the movie is a bit of a “tweener”: quite a bit longer and more involved than a simple youtube type gospel presentation, yet quite a bit shorter than the average movie which typically runs 90 -120 minutes.
But Comfort manages to pack in everything that you would expect of a movie from a Christian evangelist: characters with struggles (both Christian and non-Christian), a story with a plot line – complete with twists; a number of clear and persuasive presentations of the gospel, a refutation of negative Christian stereotypes, identification of unfounded hostility toward Christians from those who are supposed to be enlightened and tolerate; and of course a clear unequivocal stand for traditional, one man one woman marriage and a re-enforcement of the Christian message that we can both stand for the truth of the Bible and present it in a clear, loving and winsome manner.
Comfort simultaneously defends two main themes through the use of plot devices that act as illustrations for his two main points: Continue Reading
Don’t fall prey to logical traps, old arguments, or the emotional baiting of evolutionists.
 “It’s over Anakin, I have the high ground.” |
||||
| In my previous post I referenced an article titled “The Top 10 Signs that You Don’t Understand Evolution at All” which is really a restatement of objections that evolutionists believe they have adequately answered, while at the same time lightly(?) mocking creationists – as evolutionists are wont to do. (Whether lightly or not I’ll leave to you.) As is typical in a list like this, the more important questions (for which they have no answer) are not even mentioned much less given adequate answers to. But since I couldn’t bear the thought of leaving you hanging without the answers having myself referenced the article, here are responses to show none of these issues are problems for rational thinking Christians. A word of warning before we begin: Since he couches many of these statements in broad universals (“never,” “always,” etc. – which is a dead give away that the statement is almost certainly untrue and a good candidate for the “all or nothing” logical fallacy); it follows that the position he’s trying to ridicule may be technically untrue, but the point beneath the ridicule that he’s trying to make has been thoroughly refuted as I note below. Below in bold is Tyler Francke’s list of “The top 10 signs that you don’t understand evolution at all” with my explanations following immediately; and so there is no mistake on who’s saying what, my comments are indicated by my initials.
DC>He makes a number of questionable statements here, I’ll just point out a couple. First he notes:
DC>Evolution of the type we’re talking about – molecules to man is not observable. Like many evolutionists he is committing the logical error of equivocation – using the term evolution in more than one sense (which is commonly done to win arguments, though it’s logically fallacious). Natural selection (which is not evolution) is observable; molecules to man evolution is not. Second, he goes on to talk about an inference to the best explanation (which I drew upon in my last article) but intelligent design theorists and creationists alike, (not to mention scientists who dissent from evolutionary theory) would say given the evidence, such as the fossil evidence below, he has not drawn an inference to the best explanation by believing it points to evolution. He states:
DC>I would challenge him that it is not the evidence that points him to evolution, it’s his a priori beliefs (science is authoritative over scripture) that lead him to the conclusion that evolution is true because judging by evidence alone, (such as the evidence from DNA, the young solar system, etc.) the correct conclusion is that there was an intelligent designer. 2. You think we’ve never found a transitional fossil. DC>This is frankly very misleading. A more precise statement would be Continue Reading |
