I had a hard time watching Nightline this evening. Beginning a new series, Nightline decided to premier "Face Off" with a debate on the existance of God between Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort versus members of the Rational Response Squad named Brian Sapient and a woman whom calls herself Kelly. As both side spouted cliche after cliche towards one another, Whitney and I shivered with pain. Quotes such as Cameron saying that "proving the existance of God is easier than you think", and that "we (Kirk and Ray) can absolutely prove the existance of God, 100 persent, without the use of faith" filled the airwaves. On the other side Kelly enlightened America that there is no historical evidance that "Jesus was even a man". And believe me... This is only the beginning. The most striking portion of the piece is the pain that is happening after the debate. As of right now 3,768 people have responded to the debate and most comments are full of toxic content... Following in the pattern set by the debaters. I would love to process this debate with people over the nexts days as I am struggling to articulate the ugliness behind the debate. I do recognize a couple of things about the debate. I do not fit on either side of this conversation and most people on both sides of the question that I have had intelligible conversations about this subject handled the material in exponentially more responsible ways also do not fit on either side of this debate. I have posted pieces of the debate below.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mini Putt
7 comments:
i was thinking last night that two of the worst choices of people to enter this dialogue from the Christian perspective would be Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. And I wasn't quite understanding why there was so much hate coming from "Kelly" I mean seriously, she was quite bitchy...ah, well, I guess that's because they need ratings. Very sad.
I was taken aback last night as well. Both sides "argued" their respective points, which may have done more harm than help. Most alarming was the "blasphemy" challenge issued by RRS. Wow. It truly hurt me to watch that special last night.
yeah it was truly sad all the way around, and I haven't even seen any of the comments.
There's a few things that really stuck out at me.
1. Comfort and Cameron didn't even attempt to play by their own rules of no bible no faith just science. Unless one agrees with Ray's redefinition of science, they failed to follow a single one.
2.Kelly did seem really upset, and well, bitchy. I would absolutely love to hear her story. I'm sure there's a mixture of past hurts and the fact she had just been repeatidly told she is either blind (or eye-less) or has no brain (or at least not one that works) because she doesn't believe in God or creationism/id. I was even pissed off at that one.
3.The lady in the audience who asked the question about cancer really sparked my attention. The one who interrupted Ray when he started to not really answer the question. I couldn't tell if she was just pissed because Ray was avoiding the question (and was it just me or was Ray a total dick in his response to her?) or if it was the kind of pissed one gets because she is getting the same old boxed answer to a specific question she's had for years since her husband died of lung cancer. For all the talk about God in the very beginning and God once we die, she stuck out as a shining reminder to me that we need a God in the here and now in the midst of our mess.
Longest comment ever
and I have to admit, I'm a little sad Ray didn't go for the Atheists Nightmare, I was actually looking forward to watching that get properly ripped apart. And I really thought he was going to go for it when Kirk handed him the pop can.
Hey, Nick - I've been watching you blog ever since Whitney told me about it - it's time to make myself known :)
My beef is Christians who feel like they have to deny (or at least ignore)the Bible to make their case.
I understand presupposition is a shaky ground for a convincing argument, however - conviction in the Word of God is the most solid ground we as Christians have. No wonder their argument sounds weak - they're not using the truth that is the Bible. I can't imagine using human logic to explain the supernatural king of the universe. It's a backwards approach - and a selfish one. To think that human logic would open people's eyes to the maker calling their name is wrong. If I were "making a case", I would hope people were drawn to the message I represent, rather than my debate skills. I would fault the debate premise, more than the spirit of Kirk and his colleague.
It's an interesting discussion - one we at GP have struggled with over and over again with the Creation Museum. I'm glad you're wrestling with it - it's what seminary is for, eh?
You're missed in Michigan...
I used to really like Kirk Cameron when he was on "Growing Pains".
In reference to this debate, I did not see it. I hope it wasn't Kirk Cameron trying to prove that the atheists were "wretched sinners". I agree with Sh in the previous post that we can not "prove" the existence of God based strictly upon human reason, but the Bible also does not always "prove" the existence of God either. Faith proves the existence of God and even then it is still faith, meaning somewhat a mystery. I think that we need to connect with other people and stop attempting to "prove" everything, because there is a whole issue of the Enlightenment that we are really fighting against anyways.
Our faith in God can be exhibited to others, so that their faith can be made known to them.
i too liked kirk cameron better on growing pains
they start at the fall not creation for understanding God and are captive to the modern presuppositions about the gospel that revolve around abstract individual salvation rather than God's being and mission--this is why they can be nasty and feel like they are justified as being christian because they are standing up for truth in their minds; if i were an atheist, i would probably punch kirk cameron in the face and kick him in the nuts on TV, and tell him, now you are know as "groin pains"--- they don't realize that the way we interact with people is as much of a message as what they say and that their approach can only lead to dissension, shame, guilt, manipulation, anger, or defensiveness
i refuse to watch video, i already know the argument and since I am a christian, i don't want to tempt myself to become an atheist in practice (remember above seen)
thanks for post
Post a Comment