Talk:Ray Comfort

Controversial statements

More should be mentioned of Ray's controversial statements. On one his web videos , one where he's anoying people at a courthouse he says: "Solider's in Iraq are dying for you.", well i know one thing they are not dying for this guy to use them to make money.

Hi! Please sign your posts with ~~~~. Re: what Comfort says, 1) How exactly are they making money?; 2) If you can find a source which refutes his "controversial statements," then by all means put it in! Be sure to read and adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:CITE. Thanks! MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 16:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to inform you, but I've seen that video. People were not annoyed and he didn't even say that soldiers were dying for us. He said they were fighting for freedom which we all enjoy here in America. I don't agree with him, but he was also deceived as many Americans and foreigner living here were. So, that is a non issue. The issue he is talking about pertain to eternal issues not temporal things such as politics. The question is are you going to Heaven or Hell after you die? Dele

"The question is are you going to Heaven or Hell after you die?" this is supposed to be an encyclopedia-like page, not a place to proselytize. The article lists only positive (and I use the word loosely) aspects of Comfort's works without even mentionning that his claims are considered poor at best by experts. If that's not bias, I don't know what is. I agree with the original statement, and it hasn't been appropriately addressed at all here. Any science textbook should provide counter-arguments if sources are required, though common sense would be enough for most people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.203.45 (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Origins of Open Air preaching

I'm puzzled at the statement that Ray Comfort started open-air preaching in the early 1980s. I lived in Christchurch from 1974 till January 1979, and heard him preaching in Cathedral Square a number of times during that period. Cheers Neil Copeland

I'm not sure. Obviously, I wouldn't discount what you saw. Also, it's necessary to take into account that according to Out of the Comfort Zone and Miracle in the Making, he did not "discover" the principle of using the Law until around 1981, so that may be what that's referring to (doing O/A with the law). IIRC, I remember hearing or reading him say that he tried it just after he became a Christian in the 70s, but he stopped for a while. MessengerAtLWU 21:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Neil, this is an update. I remember now reading in Out of the Comfort Zone that in face he did OA in the 70s, even though it was before he started using the law, so I'll update the article to reflect that. --MessengerAtLWU 19:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is this "Article" so long?

World Book Encyclopedia, for those pastors that do get into their work, reseve only a brief one paragraph short article for them. Why is this article so long and so detailed. Wikipedia is not in the business of promoting evangalist.Magnum Serpentine 19:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

So Wikipedia should censor evangelists? How is that objective? - Soga

I think there's a fair bit of a divide between 'promoting' and 'censoring'. It's not censoring if you report the facts about someone as they are. This article makes no real mention of how uneducated and profoundly silly some of Comfort's claims have been, so it looks to be biased, and it -is- a long article expounding the positive side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.203.45 (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia should censor articles that does not satisfy the notability guideline wether they are evangelists or not. That is objective. bleauah 21:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

Pope Tract

Honestly, what controversy is there about the Pope tract? Outside of here, I've not heard of anything online in blogs or the news specifically about this tract as I have about, for example, Pat Robertson's antics. I don't want to offend anyone, but from where I'm sitting, this paragraph is merely a way for someone to vent about something they don't like, and so I've deleted it yet again. Also, 208.57.160.201, your "compromise" makes very little sense; the quote from their newsletter says nothing about any possible controversy, but merely that it would take some time for them to have the tract ready to be purchased. That could mean any number of things: that it had been designed but not sent to the printer yet, that there was some sort of delay in getting it shipping in time for the newsletter, or that they had some, but not enough to fully meet demand. MessengerAtLWU 21:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"Sharing" Faith?

If you watch only ten minutes of the video, you can see that the point of it all is to teach clever tactics to convert people to evangelical fundamentalist Christianity. Consequently, I have changed "share" to "promote." I think that's a better description of what they do, and it more than does justice to NPOV.

Hey! First, plase sign your name with "--~~~~". Second, which video are you talking about? Third, I'm not sure what the difference is between "share" and "promote." Both seem fairly NPOV. --MessengerAtLWU 04:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, promote doesn't just mean evangelism though, it could mean something like bring all Christians together to do something important. Sharing the faith, however, really is evangelism. Homestarmy 13:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You share something with someone who is interested in it. I don't think the "heathen savages" in the New World were inherently drawn to Christianity. They had it forced upon them by the evagelicals of that historical era.

Now fast forward to the 21st century. Take a look at The Way of the Master videos. Comfort displays techniques to convert people, mostly by using shame and fear. Through his narrow interpretation of the 10 commandments, we're all Adulterers if we've ever looked at another person and felt a natural, physical attraction to them...we're all Thieves if we've ever stolen anything at all, even when we were innocent young children...we're all Liars if we've ever made any kind of misstatement.

This is not sharing. This is persuasion.

I must of missed the part in the videos where Ray brings out the torture rack and Inqusition officials. Did they forget to mail me an episode? And if you really have looked at the episodes and thought about it, or really read the Bible, (Especially the first parts of Matthew), you'd find those standards were presented first by Jesus Christ, so elaborating in his particular beliefs would require notation of how they align with the Bible since, you know, he kind of is getting them out of there. Which is fine with me, I mean, the more the Bible is mentioned the better in my opinion. Homestarmy 22:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ckav and Homestarmy, as much as I'd love to get into this debate, it is not germane to the discussion. The question is, "Is 'share' an appropriate word?" Wiktionary says that to share is "to give part of what one has to somebody else to use or consume." That is precisely what Comfort does. "Persuasion" is also an appropriate word, but it has a negative connotation. "Share" does not. Also Ckav, please sign your posts in talk pages with --~~~~. Thanks! --MessengerAtLWU 00:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the fact that persuade has negative connotations, it really doesn't matter though. I think it should be left as share too. -AlexJohnc3 11:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The word “persuade” does not always carry a negative connotation but it can. And in this context it does. When one hears the word “persuade” in terms of religious evangelism it brings forth connotations of one person forcing his or her beliefs upon another. Whereas, the word “share” brings forth the connotative picture of a dialog which is more in keeping with what Mr. Comfort does. --Neovita 21:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

How about we just use the word advocate instead? --Alexc3 ^(talk) 02:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Advocate doesn't necessarily mean to evangelize either as much as share, one can advocate Christianity without actually asking someone to become a Christian, but rather to get someone to be more sympathetic to it or something like that, and that's not really the primary goal of what Ray is going for. Besides, this discussion is almost a year old, why restart it now? Homestarmy 02:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw a number of Atheists in my school selling T-shirts and talking to people trying to convert them to Atheism. I respected they and their opinion and I went to talk to them about my views too. Share faith persuade people whatever the term. He is doing it because he cares about what he believe would happen to people after death. I'd rather have him inform people about his opinion, than not saying a thing.

What does this have to do with anything? Also, the term would be deconvert, not convert because they would be trying to deconvert people from their religions. You can't convert to a lack of a belief, but you can deconvert from a religious belief system. --Alexc3 ^(talk) 02:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Atheism is not a lack of belief; it is a belief in the lack of God or gods. I could call Christianity a lack of belief in naturalism, but that doesn't do much to define it. -Soga

Actually...that is what Atheism mean...literally without-God. In the modern context, it means lack of belief in religious systems. And Christianity is most definitely not a lack of belief is naturalism--most scientists are Christian (at least in the US)216.49.214.3 (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"(philosophy) the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations"... when you say "most scientists are christian" it would be more precise to say that in the US the majority of scientists have a belief in a god or gods. Nina137.111.47.29 (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

External Links

Why can we not include these external links:

Skull and Crossbones Award - Sponsored by the Evangelica Out Reach Organization

Ray Comfort’s True and False Conversion and Law-Preaching Evangelism Examined

Must all external links be NPOV? Isn't Ray Comfort an evangelica preacher? Should others not read Evangelical reviews?

I'd have to say on the second one its probably this paragraph:

"Folks, it is not that Ray Comfort is confused, but his theology is poisoned by eternal security. Because it is fatally flawed, it has resulted in these irreconcilable contradictions and deadly errors. The sooner we realize this the better it will be for multitudes of people here and the kingdom of God in eternity. Eternal security is not the message of the Bible but instead a doctrine of demons designed to reclaim precious souls for Satan that once found salvation through the Lord Jesus and his precious blood."

That's downright hostile. Also, the article itself is, well, shoddy, I could go through it point by point and address the errors he's making and provide the context of the times to show why Jesus did what He did rather than what this person hopes that He did if you like. Plus, who are these people/person? Do they pass notability? Homestarmy 19:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and in many episodes or radio broadcasts Ray often talks in-depth about issues concerning backsliding, so that crossbones award for creating backsliders hardly applies concidering all the stuff his ministry is always doing about backsliders in the church. Homestarmy 19:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

remove the banana conversion lie...

Theres is an extremely antagonistic character who is determined to keep that lie about Ray Comfort converting becasue of a banana, no doubt a fan of Hell bound alee show. This is going to be monitored regularly...

Okay, who is this person? Have you talked to him or her about it? Having heard Comfort give his testimony, I don't think that was the key reason behind his conversion; the last straw that I've heard him more often is Jesus' statement in Matthew 5:28 that lust is just as wrong as adultery. Therefore, I've erased that portion of the sentence, and moved the rest elsewhere in the document, as the whole thing itself is relevant. If someone comes back to change it, we'll deal with it.

Who is monitoring it? You said on my talk page that LW is. Well, in the world of Wikipedia, and with all due respect to them (I admire their ministry greatly), that doesn't matter. Several editors watch this page, and if someone messes stuff up, we'll fix it. That's what the wiki community is about.

Also, sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks! MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 02:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Nah bannana is not the reason he converted its just a lie he uses to trry and prove his imaginary friend is real.--203.192.91.4 (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Current Ministry

Removed: "Additionally, by the same logic, since the penis fits well into the hand, male masterbation is designed to happen by God, despite it being quite taboo in evangelist circles." from the paragraph which talks about the banana being the atheists nightmare. I thought this was biased and completely inappropriate. Itsadiel 20:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That was vandalism, it seems an edit by Smackbot hid it from recent changes, thanks for removing it. Homestarmy 21:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

POV discovered and removed

A line which called Comfort's understanding of a banana "ignorant" and said that bananas are actually human created. No citation was added, so until one is, I have removed this sentence as it does not belong in this article. Also, there was a link to a video of Comfort describing why the banana is proof of a god, with quotations calling the video funny. The motives behind posting this video, as well as the little remark to follow the link are clearly POV. Karatenerd 13:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello! While I agree the motive may have been POV, as someone who supports Comfort, I must say that the video of him essentially renouncing one of the biggest arguments in his case for creationism would probably be good for either here or The Way of the Master#Criticisms. If we just gut everything that goes against them, then we are guilty of POV ourselves. There must be some semblence of a balance. MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 16:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a section on the banana, including a picture of a wild banana that is not the product of breeding selection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana It has big, tough seeds. Link to that.Jive Dadson 07:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Whats wrong with that atleast a bananna is real unlike imaginary friends in the sky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.91.4 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Might want to point out experts 99.9% of biologists with PhDs many of who have the same god, accept evolution. Jist because he is stupid or lies doenst change the truth!--203.192.91.4 (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Changed the sentence saying Comfort is not ecumenical even in the narrowest sense

For a person to be 'ecumenical in the narrow sense of the word' would surely mean that he or she is accepting of different variations of the same religious group, but not accepting of all religious groups. The article goes on to say Comfort has been involved with churches in most denominations, and that being the case, 'ecumenical in the narrow sense of the word' would be a good descriptor for him. NZUlysses 08:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Someone explain to me. Why does this kook deserve a Wikipedia page?

WP:NOTABILITY. Homestarmy 13:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why does Darwin deserve a Wikipedia page? -Soga

Darwin was a historically significant scientist, regardless of your opinion of his discoveries. Ray Comfort's significance is vastly more dubious by comparison. Regardless, I say the article should stay, as long as it has a factual and balanced account of what he does, how he does it, and what the controversies are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryddragyn (talk • contribs) 13:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

RRS debate information

Someone continues to delete information on the debate, namely that Comfort invoked faith despite agreeing not to beforehand. This is readily apparent in the video, which is widely available. This isn't POV - this is fact. If someone wants to step in constructively try to add balance to the interpretation, that would GREAT. But deleting the info altogether without giving a reason is not! I also suspect it's a violation of wikipedia policy.Ryddragyn 03:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Youtube videos (and videos from other video websites) are generally considered very undesirable as references, try finding a reliable source that comments on the video, rather than trying to link to the video itself. Homestarmy 02:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The debate/event of question was recorded and televised nationally, so it should be citable as a primary source. If anyone finds an uncut version that is permalinked and not on Youtube, that would be a a big help for the article.Ryddragyn 03:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

But was it recorded for use in the Public Domain (or under a license which would allow free use) by one of the stations who recorded it? This is often a problem with YouTube videos, if it was recorded straight off of, say, CNN or whatever, they may not of released copyright on the footage they filmed. Homestarmy 14:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Your attack on Ray Comfort is obvious & biased. Saying that "Sapient" received many standing ovations w/o adding that it was of course only the athiests in the audience that participated in the ovation is mis-leading. Also, as Cameron stated, this was not a debate to suggest that someone should be declared a winner so I think the line about "Although there was no clear winner..." is stupid.

The original lead in was "No winner was declared", which is neutral, IMHO, so it should stay. Modifications to the ovations portion is fine by me. Omitting references to their use of the bible and faith as scientific arguments, however, was a major feature of the debate, which frustrated not only RRS but the moderators as well. Ryddragyn 17:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I just read the reference given for the supposed highlights of the debate, and I don't see anything in there about the article affirming the idea that Cameron and Comfort refused to respond to certain points of the opposition, or that they were repeatedly referencing the Ten Commandments, which actually seemed like a useless thing for the article to say until I just added in Cameron's response in a WOTM radio podcast. Homestarmy 00:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to be a jerk here, but I read throught the links from source [13], and couldn't find any mention of Ray "refusing to respond to many RRS counterarguments." -- It seems like a small POV add-in, in the sense that it implies that either a.) Ray ignored the opponent in the debate (which seems incorrect based on the rest of the article) or b.) that Ray openly refused to deal with the RRS's comments (also seems incorrect). For the moment, I'm choosing to remove that part of that sentence, until some sort of more-extensive/less-POV-ish sourcing/article-writing can be done -- to clarify, find some source that neutrally claims that Ray Comfort "refused to respond..." and I'm all for including the statement; until that point, it's biased. 74.134.228.189 12:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of small POV add-in's, here's another one - "He was born Jewish (through his mother.)" Well since, by universal acclamation, that IS what makes you Jewish, it's inclusion seemed to be a way to cheap shot the man's Jewishness. And minimizing the Jewishness of a Jew who believes in Christ is a common technique engaged in by resentful non-Christ-believing Jews. I took out the 'through his mother' part as it adds/subtracts ZERO from the man's bio.

Evidence Bible

I don't see anything about Comfort's work on the Evidence Bible (http://www.evidencebible.com). It might not need much - maybe just something in the books section?

Sledge84 23:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Banana argument

Didn't the article used to mention that he conceded the banana argument on an interview once? I know I read that somewhere, but it's not here now. 153.42.168.174 21:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there was a bit of a fight over it, I know questions of notability got flung around, but I wasn't paying too much attention to the result. Homestarmy 22:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Banana is great it shows how he uses a banana (Created by man) as proof of god, what better way to shoot himself in the foot!--203.192.91.4 (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

External links to more information

This page deals with Ray Comfort and his WOTM ministry. The article contains direct links to his WOTM ministry website. Because these external links to sites supporting his views are allowed, the page must also offer external links to sites providing contrary views. To not allow contrary links goes against the spirit of Wikipedia (it is also known as "whitewashing"). Please do not continuously delete the link (also known as an "edit war").

Continued whitewashing of this page is not acceptable and it will lead to Wikipedia dispute resolution and may lead to the article being placed under full protection.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyndcat (talk • contribs) 16:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Continued attempts to force a blog/forum/whatever it is of no particular notability into this article might also result in this article being fully protected. But please, fully protecting an article because of one external link? That's a total over-reaction. If you'd care to join the discussion which has already taken place on the main Way of the Master talk page, then perhaps you'd see that there are legitimate concerns over the mention of the WOTM watchdog website in any articles related to The Way of the Master. Homestarmy 21:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Since September 23, 2007, there have been 7 seperate attempts to remove the link to a website critical of the subject of this Wikipedia entry. This is either an unknowning violation of the terms of Wikipedia, or a deliberate attempt at vandalism. We will repost the single disputed link within the next 2 days, and if the site is vandalised again, we will formally request mediation followed by arbitration. Whatever your personal disagreements are with the message being presented by the website in question, they do not provide legitimate reasons to censor the site. Wikipedia must remain open to ALL ideas. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyndcat (talk • contribs) 01:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is and should forever be in the business of censoring content that actually lowers the quality of its articles. How can our readers take us seriously when the external links section, which is designed to give readers the option of viewing helpful websites related to the topic, contains links to websites of no particular notability or merit? The External Links guideline is meant to standaridize a certain level of quality in external links sections, and it specifically states that blogs do not belong in external links sections, unless they are the subject of the article or managed by the subject of the article and things like that. Some non-notable, anonymous blogspot.com website does not satisfy the External Links guideline, and I have yet to see a single compelling reason why there should be an exception in this case. Merely being open to "ALL" ideas is not a good exception, and applied Wiki-wide, would quickly turn Wikipedia into GarbageDumpPedia, the free linkfarm that anyone can spam.

Furthermore, a mediation would be quite pointless, the obvious violation of Wikipedia policy going on here isn't exactly difficult to surmise, and there's no need for mediation. I would not accept it if a request was filed, and having participants in a dispute all agree to a mediation request is mandatory. Homestarmy 02:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A medcab case has been opened, but from what I've seen of the external link, there isn't much to mediate. If the external link was to a report / essay / paper that contained detailed criticism of Ray Comfort then it could possibly be included. However, a tabloid style blog isn't acceptable. Addhoc 14:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ray Comfort's Blog

I'm just wondering if it would be a good idea to include Ray Comfort's Blog at http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ into this article, since it is his own blog. I thought I might bring it up here first rather than go through a pointless revert-war over it. Thanks. SSobregon88 05:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be precedent for it in WP:EL, "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject", though i'm not quite sure what "official" entails. Homestarmy 13:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Allright then, if no one disapproves, I'm going to add his Blog to the external links SSobregon88 (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ray Comfort is a Fundamentalist Christian

Ray Comfort is a Fundamentalist Christian

Anyone against stating this fact?--203.192.91.4 (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Good no objection to the truth being stated, so I have added it with a reference from his website!--203.192.91.4 (talk) 07:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Only problem with that is that the link provided doesn't back up your assertion. _Gb^T/c 08:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Bananas

I came to this article to find out what the deal was with bananas. There doesn't seem to be any mention of bananas on the article at all now.

As I couldn't find an explanation on Wikipedia I had to look elsewhere. I found it in Comfort's "God Doesn't Believe In Atheists" (1993, reprinted as recently as 2006) in which he titles an entire chapter on the argument from design "Banana in Hand", and argues that bananas must have had a designer (they did, humans who cultivated modern bananas by artificial selection from their evolved plantain ancestors) and that the designer must be God. He describes the banana as "the atheist's nightmare". The significance of this item is that it was such a patently ridiculous argument that it's been lampooned repeatedly down the years and Comfort himself has stopped using it, although of course his critics haven't stopped reminding him of it, and his phrase "the atheist's nightmare" has come to haunt him. --82.18.14.143 (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There should be something about his banana claim since it is so widely criticized on the internet. Feerzeey (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I was certainly surprised not to see the banana argument mentioned here. It seems incredibly POV to leave out such a well-known part of the subject's history just because it's potentially embarrassing. (I assume that's why it's left out). Having looked at Comfort's blog, I really don't think he'd even object to it being here. He openly welcomes debate and parody and mentions the banana incident often. So who is against it being included here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.247.69 (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda

This article is nothing more than propaganda. This guy is barely known the page is a big advertising for his books and tv shows. Where is the "criticism" section. His controversials statements ? He's trying to hide the truth, just like he does on his blog where the comments are censored.Parkko) 21:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

Agreed. There should be a "Criticisms" or "Controversies" section, at the very least, and the banana nonsense should be in it. Mr. Comfort is a round human being, and in a real encyclopedia he should not be held up as a caricature for either side of a political/religious debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.81.173.98 (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally, Criticism sections shouldn't be in an article. I'm not sure about the "banana" thing. TheAE talk/sign 06:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does seem rather a muted article - no mention of the banana argument is made at all, and that is one area of notability for Comfort for me. I'm not interested in an edit war though, as this article looks fairly strongly patrolled by people on his side. At least there is a talk page. One thing I would say more strongly is that Comfort is known for his creationist position in general, and this is not covered well by the article, which discusses his theological position in some detail from a theological position, but not from the view of a non-theologist. From the article he is just another Christian preacher. Stevebritgimp (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"no formal training in theology"

"no formal training in theology" - why is this the very 2nd sentence?

It is very odd, since it is on the 3rd PAGE of the article reference!

If ABC found it 3rd-page material, why it is 2nd sentence material here?

I smell detractor edits.

Deipnosopher (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the lead does need work. TheAE talk/sign 06:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)