Refutation of Ray Comfort’s “God and Sexuality”
Thanks to the members of the Ray Comfort watch-dog page WeAreSMRT.com, I was able to obtain a free booklet of Ray Comfort’s track “God and Sexuality.” My readers know that I try to review as much as Ray Comfort’s material without giving him any amount of money, which is why I rely on Google Books to review his books.
Like Ray Comfort’s film, “Audacity,” the target audience is not “homosexuals” seeking to repent, but supportive Christians who aren’t doing enough to marginalize and harass their LGBT friends and family.
The booklet starts off with Ray making up a scenario (what a shock) of a woman locked in a car. When a man tries to get her out, he is believed to be a lunatic. But when he gets her out of the car, a train runs over the car, thus making the lunatic man a hero.
On page 2, Ray Comfort says,
“But you have nothing to lose by reading on so let’s do it, and see if you will become convinced of your danger. All I ask is that you are open-minded and honest.” (Page 2)
Ray Comfort is anything but an open-minded and honest person, as my blog reviews of his material clearly demonstrate. Whenever he asks others to be “open or honest” all he is doing is asking them to be gullible, making it easier for others to swallow his bait and hook with illogical fallacies and terrible arguments (which fill this entire booklet).
Exiting the Car
“Each of us is born with a limited perspective. A member of a tribe living deep in the Amazon jungle may think that his tree-surrounded world is all that exists. But place him in the heart of New York City on a Friday night, amid 10,000 yellow taxis and buildings that disappear into the clouds, and his worldview will change in an instant.
We are all born with a limited perspective of God. To some, He is a bearded man in the sky who has a big stick He’s waiting to hit us with if we do something wrong. To others, He’s a friend we can lean on when troubles arise. In Psalm 50:21, God spoke to sinful humanity and said, “These things you have done, and I kept silent; you thought that I was altogether like you; but I will rebuke you. . .”” (page 3)
Actually, we are not born with any perspective of God. All babies are plank slates when it comes to things like gods. No one is born a Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or anything. A baby mind has no grasp on what is a god.
All perspectives of god(s) come from parents and traditions. This is why where geographically one is born is a big factor of what religion one will follow in life. This is why people born in India will more likely be a Hindu, or people born in Italy will be Catholic, or people born in Saudi Arabia will be Muslim.
Perspectives of god(s) are not inherent. Babies who were raised to believe in one particular god may very well change their minds and believe in another god they were taught was not real, or end up not believing in any god(s) at all.
“Our Creator is nothing like us.” (Page 3)
We exist. God does not.
Too easy, but let’s assume for the moment that the God of the Bible is real (the key word being “try” because this god-character makes absolutely no sense). Is this “God” nothing like us?
Doesn’t the Bible say humans were made in “god’s image.”
If God is nothing like us, why does he feel anger? Anger is a emotion that humans share. Why does God have Jesus born of a woman? Human babies come from women.
This video series was produced by psychologist Valerie Tarico, examining the painfully obvious: God is human (more accurately, a human invention).
“We are also limited to being in one place at a time. In addition, we are limited to the dimension of time; we have to wait for it to pass. Neither can we create anything from nothing. Try making a frog or a dog, from nothing. How about a tree or a flea, a fly or an eye? We can’t create even a tiny grain of sand from nothing. But God created everything we see and what we can’t see (air, gravity, etc.) from nothing.” (page 3-4)
If we are limited to time, what does that make God? Does that mean God transcends time? If that is so, then he cannot be omnipresent.
The Transcendence vs. Omiprensence Argument
P1) If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e. outside of space and time)
P2) If God exists, then he is omnipresent
P3) To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space
P4) To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space
P5) Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent (from 3 and 4).
C) Therefore it is impossible for god to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).
And did God create time?
P1) God is defined as the arbiter of all things, including time;
P2) A decision requires transition from indifferences to will (requires time)
P3) Since time cannot exist prior to its existence, God cannot choose to create time;
P4) If God cannot choose to create time, he is not arbiter of all things;
P5) Therefore, a personal entity cannot be the ultimate arbiter of all things;
P6) Therefore, God as defined is internally inconsistent
C) Therefore, there is no God.
“He also has all knowledge in His mind. Ponder that one thought. He has infinite thoughts, all at once. He’s never surprised, has an idea, or suddenly “thinks” of something. He is omniscient —possessing all information about everything. Such a thought is mind-boggling.” (page 4)
Such a thought MAKES NO SENSE, it is completely illogical in so many ways.
If a being possess all information and is “never surprised”… then that means God is responsible for everything. An omniscient Creator’s has done all of his creative work already before it sets it’s creation in motion. From the moment of Creation, everything is mechanical. This means that the God-character of the Bible knew that sin, suffering and evil would enter his creation, and he allowed it to happen. An omniscient God who is “never surprised” would know that Adam and Eve would be confused and tempted by the serpent into disobeying God. God knew the first humans would disobey, and “felt anger” and punished them for doing something he knew fell well what they would do before creating them. There could be no anger in response to Adam and Eve‘s disobedience, because anger reflects a sentiment of something has happened that should not have happened. But an omniscient being “possessing all information about everything” cannot feel any more anger than we can deliberately dropping a brick on our feet.
On that note, since God is “never surprised” and “has all knowledge,” that ultimately means there is no free will. God already knows everything you are about to do. Just as it says in Psalm 139:4 – “before there was a word on my tongue, you, Lord, know it completely.” Then later in verse 16, “your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.” Psalm 44:21 says that God even knows our thoughts and inner intentions. Isaiah 48:3 says, “I foretold the former things long ago, my mouth announced them and I made them known; then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass.” This describes not just a Being who knew what happened, but what will happen, and furthermore the active part it will play in that plan. Verses like these give credence to Ray Comfort’s claim that the God-character of the Bible is indeed a all-knowing Creator who is “never surprised.”
To further illustrate my argument, take for instance you are walking down a road towards your desired destination. You then come to a T in the road, you can only go left or right, and either way will get you to your destination in the same amount of time. And let’s say God is watching and you decide to turn right, and God possessing “all knowledge” and is “never surprised,” means he knows before you do that you will turn right. Following this logic, God knows your every action and choice before you are even born all the way to whether you end up in Heaven or Hell. Your entire life and fate is already decided. That means, for instance, that God intended for billions of people in India to be born into the Hindu faith and ultimately burn in Hell. But let’s say you decide to turn left instead of right, and God did not know you would go that way. That means your choice was unknown to God… but Ray Comfort said you cannot “surprise” God for He “has all knowledge.” So that cannot be the case. You can get the picture:
- Either God is omniscient and there is no free will and evil and suffering were created by God himself OR
- there is free will and God is not omniscient, that is he does not possess all knowledge.
But according to Ray Comfort in this booklet, the only option (for the sake of argument that his God is real) is that God “possess all knowledge” and is “never surprised,” therefore Option 1 is the one and only option.
My case has been made, that if Ray Comfort’s God is real as he describes it (as supported by the Bible verses I just quoted) then free will is non-existent. All I will add is another reason why I reject Christianity, as it is relevant to this very topic. While the verses I have shared show that God knows what we will say before we say it and knows our actions before we do them, let us not forget the stories about God that contradict his supposed nature. Recall that God seemed unaware that Cain killed his brother, that God asked Cain “where is Abel?” Why would an Being who possess all knowledge ask such a thing? Why did God ask Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, but just right before Abraham could kill his son, God stops Abraham and says, “now I know that thou art a God-fearing man.” Now I know? What kind of Being that possess all knowledge would not already know? And finally, when God is disappointed with humankind and floods the world except for Noah and his family. A all-knowing Being cannot feel disappointment, for disappointment is the non-fulfillment of what one hopes. An all-knowing Being does not hope, it knows. So here we have instances of a being claimed to be omniscient, while other times where God is without certain knowledge. The two scenarios are in direct conflict. It is for these self-contradicting stories and claims of God and what God is is further reason why I reasonably reject the Abrahamic religions and their theistic claims.
“Moreover, He dwells everywhere. If you go two billion light-years into space, He’s there—in every direction. He is omnipresent. Neither is He limited by time. You will see ample proof of this if you examine Bible prophecy. As the Bible’s thousands of fulfilled prophecies show, God alone knows the details of the future. He created the dimension of time and will one day withdraw it. When you die, you will leave time and enter eternity. That’s where God dwells—in eternity. He has neither beginning nor end.” (page 4)
To say that God can exist spacelessly and timelessly seems to be the same as saying God can exist nowhere and never. If God created space-time of his own free will, then he must be capable of existing in the absence of space-time. That makes no sense to me. I don’t know what it means for something to exist in the absence of space-time, or at the very least some kind of an extension through some kind of dimension. But I am especially confused when by the idea that a conscious mind can exist without space-time. A conscious mind is always in motion, it’s always in flux. I don’t know how something that is completely static can be considered a conscious mind. Consciousness is a process, it’s an event. If God is timeless and some would also say changeless, then I don’t know what it would mean for a god to have a conscious mind. A changeless conscious mind is inconceivable to me. William Lane Craig said that matter and energy cannot exist timelessly like God can because matter and energy are never quiescent, matter and energy never stop changing and therefore they cannot be timeless. But as Theoretical Bullshit pointed out, a conscious mind is never quiescent either, and I cannot conceive of a conscious mind that is quiescent, that seems like a contradiction to me. I see no conceptual difference between a quiescent mind and a unconscious one. If the fact that matter and energy are never quiescent, that means that matter and energy cannot be timeless, then a conscious mind also cannot be timeless.
“Add to these thoughts that He can do almost everything. Almost, because the Bible says He cannot lie nor can He do evil.” (page 4)
A limited God is not a omnipotent God.
If god is omnipotent, then he must be capable of doing anything. That is what omnipotence means. And if a god is omnipotent, that means he is also capable of doing evil. And if he actually never does do any evil, the fact that he is potential of doing great evil means that he is not perfectly good. However, if he is not capable of doing evil, then he is not omnipotent. Some may say that God is good by nature and therefore it would be logically contradictory for him to do something evil and the inability to do something logically contradictory acts does not count against an entities own omnipotence. But it seems to that in order to be meaningfully omnipotent, one must have a nature that does not constrain the kinds of acts it is logically possible for one to perform. If being omnipotent means only being able to do things that are not logically contrary to one’s nature, then I am omnipotent. I can do anything that is not logically contrary to me as a mortal finite material being. But of course I do not believe that I am omnipotent. I am not omnipotent precisely because it is my nature constrains that is logically possible for me to be able to do. It is my nature that renders me non-omnipotent. So in order for a being to be omnipotent, that being would have to have a nature that does not logically constrain it’s capabilities. If God cannot do evil because he is good by nature, then his nature constrains his capabilities and he is therefore no omnipotent. But if God could do evil things, then God is potentially evil and if a being is potentially evil then they cannot be perfectly good even if it never does anything evil.
“It’s essential that you be willing to expand your awareness of God’s true nature.” (page 5)
It is pointless examining the “nature” of something that does not evidently exist. It is as pointless as expanding your awareness of the Red Unicorn’s true nature. Well what is the point of examining the nature of the Red Unicorn when there is no proof that the Red Unicorn is even real? That’s exactly the point!
Ray Comfort never takes the time to even properly define what his God even is — because he knows that as soon as he get’s specific, he’s in trouble. This is why he says “I know there is a God” and claim’s God’s existence is “axiomatic” therefor relieving him of the burden to define and prove there is a God, and dance around acting like we all know there is a God so he does not have to bother proving evidence.
“As we have seen, the most intelligent of human beings can’t create a grain of sand from nothing, so simple logic tells us that something much greater than us must have made all things.” (page 6)
Can a God create a more powerful God from nothing? If not, then by it’s inability to do something must therefore mean that something greater than God must have made God, if we followed Ray Comfort’s poor logic.
Simply because we as humans do not have the ability to perform every task demanded of us, as ridiculous as some of them may be, does not mean that a invisible unproven magic-man must therefore exist. I cannot create thunder, but that does not mean Thor or Zeus must therefore be real.
So why does Ray Comfort bring things like this up (asking humans to create something from nothing)? One way is to use the “God of the gaps” fallacy, by asking people questions, and when they are incapable of answering, he says “therefore God did it” without having to prove his God is even real to begin with. It’s the old theistic question “why is there something instead of nothing?” To which I respond by asking why they think that “nothing” is the natural default, then ask them “why is there God instead of nothing?” That usually stops the theists in their tracks.
Born This Way
“Usually when a homosexual says that he was “born this way,” he’s saying that he can’t help being gay; it’s just natural for him. But that’s like a fornicator saying that he was “born this way” because he keeps wanting to have sex with every woman he sees. Or like an adulterer saying that he can’t help his behavior because he naturally longs to have sex with women other than his wife. In one sense the homosexual is right: he was born with a sinful nature that loves to sin.” (page 21-22)
This is where Ray Comfort does full retard. And it is pretty much the bulk of Ray Comfort’s argument against homosexuality and gay marriage, which was the center focus for his film Audacity and his new tactic for street preaching: by making it appear that homosexuality is a choice just like being an adulterer is being a choice. (If you ask me, Ray Comfort should feel less proud of himself for this than his pathetic Banana argument).
Homosexuality (like heterosexuality) is scientifically confirmed to be a matter of being born homosexual. People are naturally born homosexual‘s, it’s as normal and natural as people being born heterosexual. On the other hand, there is no gene or hormone or anything at all for being born an “adulterer.” Adultery is a choice, just as being a married person is a choice. No one is born an adulterer or born a married individual.
What about fornicators? Fornicators are just unmarried people engaging in sex. But sex is what humans are biologically built to do. Marriage is a human social and cultural invention (and a late invention at that), not a biological creation. Humans are biologically meant to engage in sex, just as they are biologically meant to digest food for fuel and breath oxygen. Sexual intercourse has existed long before the concept of marriage was ever invented. There is nothing inherently wrong with two consenting unwed adults engaging in sex.
The point of this whole segment is that some people are naturally born homosexual and others are naturally born heterosexual. It is in their biological makeup to be naturally born that way.
So what about the science that confirms that people are born homosexual? Here are two studies:
What’s the significance of these studies?
They are two of the many studies that show that homosexuality is in fact a matter of being “born that way.”
So due to the fact that homosexuality is not a choice, Ray Comfort’s entire argument crumbles away.
Q&A on Homosexuality
What’s wrong with gay marriage?
The institution of marriage was instigated by God as a moral union between one man and one woman for the purpose of procreation, and reflects the relationship between Christ and His Church. Gay “marriage” is not a moral union instigated by God for the purpose of procreation.
It is a civil merger between two men or two women. Someone may “marry” the Eiffel Tower as a woman did in 2008, but this has nothing to do with the moral union of marriage. The same applies to homosexual “marriage.”
First and foremost, SO WHAT? America is a free nation that is not ruled or governed by what any particular religion dictates what constitutes as “marriage.” By this fact alone, Ray Comfort’s has no case to stand on. But it gets even worse.
Second of all, there is no proof that marriage was created by Ray Comfort’s God (let alone any proof of Ray Comfort’s God even existing). In fact, marriage predates Judaism and Christianity by thousands of years. Ergo, none of the Abrahamic faiths created marriage and do not have a monopoly on what constitutes as marriage.
Third, even in the Bible, marriage is not only between one man and one woman. Too often, it is a man with multiple wives, as many as he can afford to look after. And if he can, he can have multiple concubines, i.e. women he can have sex with whenever he pleases, because female concubines are just objects of property meant to please the owner.
If Ray Comfort and his Christian ilk even gave a damn about marriage, especially in America, they would be all in favor of polygamy and fight tooth-and-nail to abolish “divorce” (something that even Jesus openly spoke out against multiple times).
Do Christians believe gays should be stoned?
Definitely not. Why should Christians in the United States (or elsewhere) want to institute
the laws of another nation, from another era? Each country and civilization has its own laws.
And yet Jesus criticized the Pharisees in Jerusalem for not obeying the laws of the Old Testament, particularly how the Pharisees failed to stone to death rebellious children. Matthew 15:3-4 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'”
But if Ray Comfort believes that a country should not institutes laws from another country from another era (and phrase it with “why” as if it’s a silly proposition), then any law proposed in Congress that is religious in nature should be struck down…. thankfully in America, we have this thing called Separation of Church and State.
Do Christians hate homosexuals?
Christians are commanded to love everyone. If someone professes to be a Christian and has any hatred, then he doesn’t know God: “He who does not love does not know God, for God is
love” (1 John 4:8).
If a Christian has any hatred…. then they do not know God…
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters–yes, even their own life–such a person cannot be my disciple.” – Jesus’ words, Luke 14:26
There you have it, from Christ’s (God’s) own words, a Christian should harbor hatred. Hatred toward even their own lives.
Aside from the fact that no one can “know” anything about a being that does not apparently exist, Ray Comfort apparently does not even know what his sacred book says about his theology.
Isn’t Romans 1 speaking of “vile affections” rather than loving homosexual relationships?
Scripture says that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9,10), whether their relationship is vile or loving. Homosexuals must repent, just like everyone else.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says “The unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom … neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
Any mention of homosexuality? I don’t see any.
What I did spot was the claim that thieves cannot go to Heaven…. and yet I recall that in Luke, a thief was crucified next to Jesus. But when the thief called out to Jesus as his savior, Jesus saved the thief, “And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:32-43).
So wait… aren’t thieves supposed to be unable to “inherit the Kingdom of God”???
This is one of the fundamental problems with Christianity: You can break 612 commandments out of the whole list of 613. There is only one sin, that not even God has the power to forgive…unbelief. Nowhere does the Bible damn believers for their works – belief can always get them out of that. Nor does the Bible allow that good, kind and charitable saintly souls can go to heaven even if they do not believe.
So believers can be as vile as they wish – it doesn’t matter. Atheists can be the most moral people ever – it doesn’t matter. Morality doesn’t matter. Gullibility is the only criteria required for redemption.
The Bible says it’s an “abomination” for a man to lie with a man (Lev. 20:13). This clearly isn’t a serious sin because it also says it’s an “abomination” to eat certain fish (Lev. 1:10).
It’s not the word “abomination” that should be looked at here. It’s the punishment prescribed in each case, because in any judicial system the punishment given for a crime reveals the seriousness of the particular transgression. Eating non-kosher fish has no punishment; however, “if a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman,” it was so serious under Hebrew law that “they shall surely be put to death.”
Do you know what else was a serious abomination worthy of death? Wearing clothes made from two different fabrics.
So according to a ancient fable book, the all-powerful Supreme Being of the universe says homosexuality is just as bad a wearing clothes of mixed fabrics, both of which are apparently so serious, they are worthy of death. So this is the same Supreme God says mixing fabrics and homosexuality is bad…. but keeping slaves is okay (Exodus 21, Lev. 19, Lev. 25). Does this seriously sound like a reasonable source of morality to any ethically sane person?
Oh, and ladies, since Leviticus was brought up followed by “it was so serious under Hebrew law” I thought I should share this little bit about Leviticus 27:1-7, since Hebrew law is “so serious.”
And the LORD said unto Moses, saying, “And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels. And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.
Did you catch that first part!? “The LORD said unto Moses,” so this is supposedly from the God-character himself, the supreme law maker of all morality, the god who is inerrant and without error, had this to say about the value of women:
Here’s a summary:
Over 60 years old: Males 15 shekels, Females 10 shekels.
20 – 60 years old: Males 50 shekels, Females 30 shekels.
5 – 20 years old: Males 20 shekels, Females 10 shekels.
One month to 5 years old: Males 5 shekels, Females 3 shekels.
And babies (or fetuses) less than one month old are worth nothing at all, no need to even mention them.
According to God’s perfect moral law, women are always worth less then men, and babies less than one month old are worthless. Ray Comfort says that Hebrew Law was so serious and important to God, so logically Ray Comfort must believe that his wife and mother and all women are worth less then him.
Was Sodom’s sin being inhospitable, and not homosexuality?
The Bible says, “Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” (Jude 1:7). The Amplified Bible says of the same verse that the men of Sodom “gave themselves over to impurity and indulged in unnatural vice and sensual perversity.” They may have lacked hospitality, but the reason God rained fire and brimstone on the city was because of their sexual perversity.
Wrong, the Bible says Sodom’s sin was not sexual perversity, but because of their terrible hospitality…
- “Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words … Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.” Matthew 10:14-15
- “But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not … I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.” Luke 10:10-12
….laziness, pride, wealth, and ignoring the poor…
- “Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom … ye people of Gomorrah … Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.” Isaiah 1:10-17
- “This was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness … neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.” Ezekiel 16:49
… and for adultery and lies.
- “I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.” Jeremiah 23:14
None of these five verses that delve into the “sins” of Sodom mention homosexuality or sexual perversity.
The word “homosexual” wasn’t even in the Bible until the mid-1900s.
A man lying with a man as with a woman wasn’t called a “homosexual” in the 400-year-old King James Version because the word “homosexual” didn’t exist yet. The term “homosexuality” wasn’t coined until the late 19th century.
How is “did you choose to be a heterosexual?” in any way a loaded question? It might well be a question that can’t be answered with a simple yes or no, but it makes no presuppositions, as loaded questions do. And since Ray & Co believe that “does one choose to be a homosexual?” is a simple question with the simple answer “yes”, then they are not really being logical here.
The sexual attraction that heterosexuals have towards the opposite is sex is exactly the same as homosexuals feel for the same sex. This information is easily obtained by talking to and listening to gays and by reading the scientific literature. It is reality, something Christians are not well acquainted with. A Christian gets facts about the world around them from a book and fails to check and see if reality confirms or contradicts their information.