A Chick double features

[Upchurch]

For those of you who just can't get enough hate from Mr. Chick:

Birds and the Bees (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1052/1052_01.asp)
The on-going saga of Ms. Henn and Susy takes a new twist when Susy teaches us that homosexuals wear demons on their heads.

and

Unloved (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1018/1018_01.asp)
There is a lesson to be learned when children are psychologically abused by their parents.

[c4ts]

http://www.chick.com/birdsandbeesletter.asp

I don't understand. Did the gay sailor rape Jack Chick or try to make him gay?

[geni]

Originally posted by Upchurch
For those of you who just can't get enough hate from Mr. Chick:

Birds and the Bees (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1052/1052_01.asp)
The on-going saga of Ms. Henn and Susy takes a new twist when Susy teaches us that homosexuals wear demons on their heads.



I see only the King James version of the bible is acceptible now

[The GM]

Here's a review site for all things Chick.

http://www.monsterwax.com/chickreviews.html

Best review line talking about Chick's 'The Death Cookie':

"What exactly is the "death cookie?" Why, the Holy Eucharist, of course. Talk about an inflamatory title, this one must really T-off the masses. (Get it? Masses? As in--never mind.) "

(smirks)

[Quester_X]

I must say, there was one thing in those tracts that surprised me. In "Unloved", Chick didn't end up portraying the daughter as an evil-devil-worshipping-lesbian-nazi-feminest-etc and showing her burning in hell! Imagine, a Chick tract that doesn't directly attack anybody. He's still a jerk, though.

[Marian]

Does anyone else just end up finally sitting there slack jawed by the end of these? I mean I start out going 'No, no, no, jesus f--- NO, no, gimme a ******* break, NO, then finally just go slack jawed and wonder how someone functions with only a brain stem.

:hb:

Seriously though how does someone function with being such a little ball of hate? He must pop tums like they're M&Ms or something. *boggle*

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Upchurch
For those of you who just can't get enough hate from Mr. Chick:

Birds and the Bees (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1052/1052_01.asp)
The on-going saga of Ms. Henn and Susy takes a new twist when Susy teaches us that homosexuals wear demons on their heads.

No children are that cyooooot! They must be evil aliens after the manner of My Little Pony.


Unloved (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1018/1018_01.asp)
There is a lesson to be learned when children are psychologically abused by their parents.
Doctor No-Face strikes again! :D

This is a hoot:
Why Chick wrote 'The Birds and the Bees'
http://www.chick.com/birdsandbeesletter.asp

[Electric Monk]

Originally posted by Quester_X
I must say, there was one thing in those tracts that surprised me. In "Unloved", Chick didn't end up portraying the daughter as an evil-devil-worshipping-lesbian-nazi-feminest-etc and showing her burning in hell! Imagine, a Chick tract that doesn't directly attack anybody. He's still a jerk, though. I was waiting for that as well. Based on previous tracts, I'd say that he ran out of room, not bile.

[DangerousBeliefs]

But, can't I just live my life of sin and right up to my deathbed... repent and accept JC as my personal (blah, blah, blah)...???

Cool!

Pass the booze and hookers!

(Substitution "Catholic Priests" for "gays" when reading for more fun and laughs.)

[geni]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs
But, can't I just live my life of sin and right up to my deathbed... repent and accept JC as my personal (blah, blah, blah)...???

Cool!

Pass the booze and hookers!



Come on you must know the answer to that one:

"you know the man who planned to repent at the 11th hour? He died at the tenth."

[Bubbles]

The thing that amazes me about people like Chick is that someone can care so much about their religion that they will sin against honesty, charity, and reason to advance it.

I'd say something about Fundamentalist theology, but I tend to go on and on with that, and I doubt that many here care about an incarnational / sacramental critique of Evangelical Christianity.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Upchurch
For those of you who just can't get enough hate from Mr. Chick:

Birds and the Bees (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1052/1052_01.asp)
The on-going saga of Ms. Henn and Susy takes a new twist when Susy teaches us that homosexuals wear demons on their heads.
(snipped)

Ms Henn is my hero.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Bubbles
The thing that amazes me about people like Chick is that someone can care so much about their religion that they will sin against honesty, charity, and reason to advance it.

I'd say something about Fundamentalist theology, but I tend to go on and on with that, and I doubt that many here care about an incarnational / sacramental critique of Evangelical Christianity. If presented thoughtfully then such a critique is actually VERY welcome. There are Christian believers here amongst us "supposedly atheistic" skeptics too. You ARE welcome.

[Ratman_tf]

I've never heard of gays calling their partner 'Wife'.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Upchurch
For those of you who just can't get enough hate from Mr. Chick:

Birds and the Bees (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1052/1052_01.asp)
The on-going saga of Ms. Henn and Susy takes a new twist when Susy teaches us that homosexuals wear demons on their heads.
I'm almost proud of lil' JTC for not translating it as "homersexuals"

Unloved (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1018/1018_01.asp)
There is a lesson to be learned when children are psychologically abused by their parents.
There almost appears to be a glimmer of "hope" in the hateful heart of Chick. With a few minor alterations, you may be able to revise the moral learned from that story from "God loves me, I have a reason to live" to something with slightly less empty sentiment.

[Mark J. Henn]

Originally posted by Suezoled

Ms Henn is my hero. I'll be sure to tell her. On her behalf, thanks!

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
I've never heard of gays calling their partner 'Wife'.

This is Chick's silly fantasy.

Yes sometimes 'husband' or something silly like 'husbear', but not 'wife'.

Dunno about lesbians though.

[Jesus]

Originally posted by Upchurch
For those of you who just can't get enough hate from Mr. Chick:

Birds and the Bees (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1052/1052_01.asp)
The on-going saga of Ms. Henn and Susy takes a new twist when Susy teaches us that homosexuals wear demons on their heads. Susy, Susy, Susy, you didn't read your bible carefully enough:

1 Timothy

2:11
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

2:12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

[Ladewig]

If you're going to teach the Bible, you caan't skip over verses. Chick's Sodom tract left out Genesis 19:8 where Lot, the story's hero, offers up his two virgin daughters to the crowd if it leaves the visiting angels alone.

[c4ts]

Well, that was the custom at the time.

[Monty]

Yeah Chick is pretty nutty. I think this guy takes the cake though:
http://www.fixedearth.com

Check out the section on the tides.

Wow.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
I've never heard of gays calling their partner 'Wife'. I have, actually, but I probably have more exposure to a gay community than most straight men do. I'll grant you that its not something I hear often. There is this one guy, "Mama", who must have been the basis for Nathan Lane's character in "The Birdcage". She always refers to gay men in the feminine.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Upchurch
For those of you who just can't get enough hate from Mr. Chick:

Birds and the Bees (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1052/1052_01.asp)
The on-going saga of Ms. Henn and Susy takes a new twist when Susy teaches us that homosexuals wear demons on their heads.

and

Unloved (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1018/1018_01.asp)
There is a lesson to be learned when children are psychologically abused by their parents.
Oh my, there are really perverted people out there, the chick people that is. Such a shame tough, the drawings are kinda a nice.

I'm soooo happy I'm a atheist.

[Jessica Blue]

Hahahahaha...are you sure those Jack Chick comics aren't a parody? They cant be for real??

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Ladewig
If you're going to teach the Bible, you caan't skip over verses. Chick's Sodom tract left out Genesis 19:8 where Lot, the story's hero, offers up his two virgin daughters to the crowd if it leaves the visiting angels alone.

Even better - a few verses later, both daughters get Lot drunk and play "hide the salami" with him. They give birth to Moab and Benammi. Moab is the first blood of the Moabites and Benammi is the first blood of the Ammonites. These were the enemies of the Jews.

How wonderful is it to create a history of your mortal enemies and make them the bastard offspring of an incestuous affair?

Priceless.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


This is Chick's silly fantasy.

Yes sometimes 'husband' or something silly like 'husbear', but not 'wife'.

Dunno about lesbians though. I worked with a woman who regularly called her partner wife. I don't think it is typical, it was simply to her endearing.


Susy: God hates homosexuality.

Susy: And the Bible is true.

Susy: I feel so sad about all the kids who will be tricked into believing it is ok to be Gay and not believing in Jesus.Suzy, the bastion of logic and compassion...er she hates THE SIN and not the sinner, right?

[Scot C. Trypal]

To me, the most humorous part is what’s not said. The body language is just priceless .

Look at the facial features of Ms. Henn… A witch, no doubt.

I bet they all get together and play D&D.

An honorable mention should go to the panel which shows the arrow Jesus followed to get from outer space to the earth.

---------

What’s sad is that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, from the OT reflections on the “event”, seems to have been originally about inhospitality, glutton, hubris, and more, with only a minor mention of sexual misconduct (which, sure, should include attempted rape of anyone, not to mention angels).

[dissonance]

The funniest part of 'Unloved' is definitely this line:

I'm UNWANTED, UNLOVED, DISOWNED...and the doctor says I'm dying of CANCER!

It's just so over the top, it's hysterical. Like the poor guys life wasn't bad enough already, Chick has to have him be dying of CANCER! Right out of nowhere, for no apparent reason!

And what's with the daughter phoning her parents and being all 'I just married a senator!' Wouldn't her parents want to be there? Or at least know in advance?

Sheesh.

[phildonnia]

According to chick, "new laws" apparently forbid bringing Bibles to school. Since I'm sick of hearing this, I think it's time for a challenge.

I will send $50 to any child who was arrested, fined, disciplined, detained, suspended or expelled for bringing a Bible to school. If you know any deserving individual that this might apply to, please direct them to this thread. If you don't know of any examples, then kindly stop referring to this phenomenon as though it really happens.

Obviously I'm not talking about reading from the Bible over a bullhorn in the middle of class, which is something else entirely.

[Skeptic]

This is a hoot:
Why Chick wrote 'The Birds and the Bees'
http://www.chick.com/birdsandbeesletter.asp

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by dissonance
It's just so over the top, it's hysterical. Like the poor guys life wasn't bad enough already, Chick has to have him be dying of CANCER! Right out of nowhere, for no apparent reason!
I disagree, its not over the top until the guy loses an limb, eyesight, hearing, or any combination of the 3.

(It reminds me of a tasteless joke I heard once... :p )

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by phildonnia
According to chick, "new laws" apparently forbid bringing Bibles to school. Since I'm sick of hearing this, I think it's time for a challenge.

I will send $50 to any child who was arrested, fined, disciplined, detained, suspended or expelled for bringing a Bible to school. If you know any deserving individual that this might apply to, please direct them to this thread. If you don't know of any examples, then kindly stop referring to this phenomenon as though it really happens.

Obviously I'm not talking about reading from the Bible over a bullhorn in the middle of class, which is something else entirely.

Ssshhhh. Chick prefers his strawmen to have teeth and claws to scare the little children.

[An Infinite Ocean]

The real tragedy is that there's no hell for Chick to burn in when his time comes. Can you imagine the look on his face when he found himself in a lake of fire?

[Edited for grammar and to add:] I just read Chick's explanation of this tract - funniest line ever must surely be the last:

"So please, let the kids read “The Birds and the Bees.” It could save them from a homosexual nightmare in the future".

A homosexual nightmare! I love it.

[JesFine]

Originally posted by dissonance
The funniest part of 'Unloved' is definitely this line:

I'm UNWANTED, UNLOVED, DISOWNED...and the doctor says I'm dying of CANCER!

It's just so over the top, it's hysterical. Like the poor guys life wasn't bad enough already, Chick has to have him be dying of CANCER! Right out of nowhere, for no apparent reason! The second to last panel is good too: "Jimmy died four months later". That made me laugh out loud.

And this line by Susy is classic (emphasis Chick's): "If anyone tries to make you gay, stay away from them!"

Holy crap (literally). I'm trying to figure out a) How someone would try to make someone else gay, and b) How a kid would know if someone was trying to make them gay.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by JesFine
How a kid would know if someone was trying to make them gay.

That's easy, if they talk to you, they are trying to make you gay.

Swishy looking guys with insectoid demons are easy to spot. :D

[LFTKBS]

With respect to "Unloved," i'm glad to see once again that god only has something to offer to the truly wretched, and that happy, well-adjusted people have no need of it.

[c4ts]

Jesus is trying to make you gay! What do you think he meant by "do unto others?"

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Skeptic
This is a hoot:
Why Chick wrote 'The Birds and the Bees'
http://www.chick.com/birdsandbeesletter.asp

He called me "beloved"! Twice! He's a Gayer!

Back, Chick! Back I say!

[Scot C. Trypal]

And this line by Susy is classic (emphasis Chick's): "If anyone tries to make you gay, stay away from them!"

Holy crap (literally). I'm trying to figure out a) How someone would try to make someone else gay, and b) How a kid would know if someone was trying to make them gay.

I think the theory is that merely seeing or being geographically near to a homosexual or aware of the fact that they exist and some people don’t gag at the notice of them, I think that does the trick.

So, to make people gay, gays just have to be all gay and stuff. You know, be living and around other humans. :rolleyes:

The next time Larry and Charles go on an elementary school recruitment drive, a very common thing for a gay couple to do, they’ll have to be sure to crack a window and leave the demons in the car. Its too much of a giveaway; Suzy caught on right away.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
What’s sad is that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, from the OT reflections on the “event”, seems to have been originally about inhospitality, glutton, hubris, and more, with only a minor mention of sexual misconduct (which, sure, should include attempted rape of anyone, not to mention angels). Even if we assume that the story is all about homosexual rape - what level of homophobia does it require to insist that the problem is the 'homosexual' part and not the 'rape' part?

This isn't the first time Chick's displayed this attitude. In another tract (called 'The Bear', IIRC) a newly born-again prisoner announces that there is to be no more rape in his prison. Why? Because the Bible says that sodomy is wrong. Again, no mention of rape being wrong.

Admittedly, the OT is hardly as condemning of rape as it might be...

[Fidelio]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal


I think the theory is that merely seeing or being geographically near to a homosexual or aware of the fact that they exist and some people don’t gag at the notice of them, I think that does the trick.

So, to make people gay, gays just have to be all gay and stuff. You know, be living and around other humans. :rolleyes:



You left out the toaster.:)

[Scot C. Trypal]

Even if we assume that the story is all about homosexual rape - what level of homophobia does it require to insist that the problem is the 'homosexual' part and not the 'rape' part?

The way I see it, Chick has not read what the Bible says about Sodom but has instead bought into some very old propaganda, which hides the rape aspect or any other but homosexuality. (Most of the following comes from my reading of Homosexuality and Civilization by Louis Crompton):

In the Apocrypha, Sodom’s sin is still about pride and inhospitality. In the Pseudepigrapha, Sodom’s sins become more about sexual misconduct, only loosely including homosexuality.

The first work in which Sodom becomes significantly about homosexuality is in Philo’s On Abraham. Here the sin is not much about pride and inhospitality anymore, but about indulgence in food, drink, and sex, which was a result of their wealth (prosperity can cause gayness was the idea). But still, these Sodom men became sex fiends, not homosexuals; men, women, didn’t matter.

Over the years, Christianity latched onto the homosexuality angel of Philo’s take. It seems, Paul in the NT already saw homosexuality as a thing for pagan religions, and Sodom would be a great way for an organized church to use homosexuals as scapegoats. Sodom became the example city.

In the 3rd century Clement of Alexandria still characterized Sodom’s sin as gluttony, in food and sex, but St. John Chrysostom, in the 4th century, and St. Augustine, in The City of God (412 AD), made homosexuality Sodom’s unique sin. Now, the sin wasn’t anything most reasonable folks call immoral today, like rape, or mistreatment of strangers. It wasn’t about crimes people do, as much as it was about having a certain type of person in the city’s midst. Playing on that paranoia was valuable. From here we can find homosexuals being blamed for and punished for everything from a boom in the rat population to Muslim successes on the battlefield, as, of course, God wouldn’t punish an adherent Christian city for nothing.

You left out the toaster. :)

Oh yeah. You also get a free toaster if you join. But remember, it’s a life long commitment; you have to really want the toast. :)

[chrisberez]

Man, those demon puppits are really wigging me out.

[Upchurch]

I just noticed. In Unloved, the "good" daughter, Nancy, gets married to a rich senator and then calls her parents to let them know about it. Also, I can't help but to notice that after only three years, her kids are awfully big. I wonder if she and the senator "had" to get married. **wink, wink, nudge, nudge**

[Scot C. Trypal]

Unloved got me wondering. Does Jack Chick have an older sister and a set of twin nieces?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
Unloved got me wondering. Does Jack Chick have an older sister and a set of twin nieces? Based on Chick's view of life, it's more likely that he has a son, daughter, twin granddaughters, and perhaps a bit of guilt.

[JesFine]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
That's easy, if they talk to you, they are trying to make you gay.

Swishy looking guys with insectoid demons are easy to spot. :D Scot C. TypalI think the theory is that merely seeing or being geographically near to a homosexual or aware of the fact that they exist and some people don’t gag at the notice of them, I think that does the trick.

So, to make people gay, gays just have to be all gay and stuff. You know, be living and around other humans.Well, obviously the swishiness and the demons and the toasters (?) would give away the gay people who are trying to make Susy gay. I was concerned more with any straight people who might try this. For example, clearly Ms. Henn (I assume she is not gay, because there are no demons, but wait a minute... Ms. Henn? At her age? Don't tell me lesbians don't have demons!) was trying, but then again, she needed to enlist the help of two gay people in her attempt. Perhaps it is not even possible for a straight person to make someone else gay? If so, I will breathe a huge sigh of relief! If not, I hope Jack Chick will do a tract describing some of their techniques so I will know what to look for. Thanks, Jack!

[Fordama]

The most eerie aspect is the faceless characterizations of god. To me, that looks demonic.

Fordama

[farmermike]

My husband tells me that I should read all the threads before responding, but I think I get the gist. It must be a real hoot to paint Christians as idiots who actually believe that there is not only a creator, but that we are answerable to him. Maybe instead of reading Chick so religiously, you could open a bible and see if that 's equally amusing. Of course that would require that you put some stock in the most historically acurate book in existance. By the way, no one has ever found Jesus' body and not for lack of trying.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by farmermike
It must be a real hoot to paint Christians as idiots who actually believe that there is not only a creator, but that we are answerable to him.Have you actually read any of Chick's work? There is no need for us to paint him as an idiot.

Further, most of the folks on this board do not believe that all, or even most, Christians are idiots (although, granted, some do).
Maybe instead of reading Chick so religiously, you could open a bible and see if that 's equally amusing.I think you'd be surprised how many folks on this board actually have read the bible and, probably, know more about biblical history than most Christians.
Of course that would require that you put some stock in the most historically acurate book in existance.Case in point. (jk) I respect your belief that that is true, but evidence and the book's own history suggests otherwise. Most of the more extrodinary aspects of the bible have little to no corroboration (sp? - "third party back-up")
By the way, no one has ever found Jesus' body and not for lack of trying. ... um, there are a lot of 2000 year old bodies that can't be found. Heck, in modern times, there are some 2 year old bodies that haven't been found. That doesn't really prove anything.


edited to fix spelling and to save Mercutio's poor eyes.

[Fordama]

Originally posted by farmermike
It must be a real hoot to paint Christians as idiots who actually believe that there is not only a creator, but that we are answerable to him. Actually it's Chick that is making Christians look like idiots--not people on this board.

Fordama

[KAW143]

"If anyone tries to make you gay stay away from them!"

Well, I guess we should really stay away from that god guy, huh? He makes people gay! It said so on this T-shirt I saw, once. . .

[LillyThePink]

Originally posted by farmermike
It must be a real hoot to paint Christians as idiots who actually believe that there is not only a creator, but that we are answerable to him.

nope. That's not what's happening here, hon. This thread mocks Chick because he's a loon. That's not to say that ALL Christians are loons simply because they are Christians. Its that Chick is a loon for spewing this venomous bigotted sh!te constantly. Hope that helps.

[Scot C. Trypal]

Farmermike has a husband?

Cognitive dissonance, ouch…

[KAW143]

Chick's take on homosexuality has always been a bit on the bizarre side. Another of his "tracts" called "The Gay Blade" deals with the fact that gayness is not new. Of course, he pulls the old Sodom and Gomorrah chestnut out (side note: if the residents of Sodom practiced sodomy and hence the word, what, exactly was it that the Gomorrahites did? Is there such a thing as gamorrahy?), but also includes an amusing panel discribing the discovery of a ancient site that depicted homosexual bahaviour on the walls. The archeologists, unlike those godless heathens that dig up dinsaurs, had thier hands over their mouths: "Oh, God, I'm gonna' VOMIT!" and "We can't publish this. It's disgusting!" Also, he informs us that before AIDS, "gays had an average life expectency of 42 years due to violence and venerial disease" but that "AIDS has only reduced that expectency to 39 years" (a "fact" about which he seems truly disappointed). Also, if AIDS research money isn't granted in great enough amounts, all gay men will give blood, thus infecting the blood supply with AIDS ('cause you KNOW they all have it!) and exposing the world to "BLOOD TERRORISM"! Shudder, shudder. . .

[juryjone]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I respect your belief that that is true, but evidence and the book's own history suggests otherwise. Most of the more extrodinary aspects of the bible have little to no coberation (sp? - "third party back-up")

I believe the word you're looking for is "corroboration". (As well as "extraordinary".)

I agree entirely with Upchurch. Calling a book rife with internal contradictions "the most historically acurate book in existance" shows a certain lack of knowledge of the topic.

Originally posted by farmermike
My husband tells me that I should read all the threads before responding

Probably good advice in this case. There is an awesome amount of knowledge on this board about the bible, as has been shown in many of the threads in this forum.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by juryjone


I believe the word you're looking for is "corroboration". (As well as "extraordinary".)um.... yes. :o

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by JesFine
For example, clearly Ms. Henn (I assume she is not gay, because there are no demons, but wait a minute... Ms. Henn? At her age? Don't tell me lesbians don't have demons!)Of course they have them, they're just not readily visible from the outside. "Fags" have external demonalia, "dykes" have internal demonalia. Did you fall asleep in Sunday School or something?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
"Fags" have external demonalia, "dykes" have internal demonalia.Mary Magdalene had "seven demons driven out of her" by Jesus, which supports your internal demon theory. She must have been a raging lesbian to have 7 of those little things.

And Jesus over came those demons. That should say something about the real nature of his "omnipotence"

**wink, wink, nudge, nudge**

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Fordama
The most eerie aspect is the faceless characterizations of god. To me, that looks demonic.

Fordama

Doctor No-Face was a villain in Batman comics back in the early 1960s. Now he's working for Chick playing God Almighty.

A man with no face must earn a living just like the rest of us.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
Farmermike has a husband? Could be short for farmermichelle. Or maybe she's using her husband's account?

[KAW143]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Mary Magdalene had "seven demons driven out of her" by Jesus, which supports your internal demon theory. She must have been a raging lesbian to have 7 of those little things.

And Jesus over came those demons. That should say something about the real nature of his "omnipotence"

**wink, wink, nudge, nudge**

This is SOOO insensitive. It isn't the *volume* of your demons, but how you use them; therefore, a lesbian with only 6 demons can be just as raging as Mary was, provided that she knows what she doing with what she's been given.

[Fordama]

Originally posted by KAW143


This is SOOO insensitive. It isn't the *volume* of your demons, but how you use them; therefore, a lesbian with only 6 demons can be just as raging as Mary was, provided that she knows what she doing with what she's been given. I thought it was the airspeed of an unladen demon that was important. European demons have a lower unladen airspeed than an African demon.

Fordama

[dmarker]

Satan has the backing of the courts, trying to shut the mouths of God-fearing pastors, who still have the courage to preach about it from the book of Romans, who show what God thinks of homosexuality and what He did to Sodom and Gomorrah. I believe the time will soon come when godless judges will close churches that call being gay a sin.

http://www.chick.com/birdsandbeesletter.asp

How can the courts tell any pastor what to preach in his church? The wall of separation between church and state forbid any govt official from interfering with what can be preached from the pulpit.

And how can any judge close a church? The church could surely hire the ACLU to administer a legal pimp slap to any judiciary who could be stupid enough to dare.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by dmarker

How can the courts tell any pastor what to preach in his church? The wall of separation between church and state forbid any govt official from interfering with what can be preached from the pulpit.

And how can any judge close a church? The church could surely hire the ACLU to administer a legal pimp slap to any judiciary who could be stupid enough to dare. It's not a reasoned position. Chick is working in the one medium he understands the best: fear.

[Tom Morris]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Mary Magdalene had "seven demons driven out of her" by Jesus, which supports your internal demon theory. She must have been a raging lesbian to have 7 of those little things.

And Jesus over came those demons. That should say something about the real nature of his "omnipotence"

**wink, wink, nudge, nudge**

For that, you can have an honourary doctorate of theology.

[An Infinite Ocean]

Originally posted by farmermike
My husband tells me that I should read all the threads before responding, but I think I get the gist. It must be a real hoot to paint Christians as idiots who actually believe that there is not only a creator, but that we are answerable to him. Maybe instead of reading Chick so religiously, you could open a bible and see if that 's equally amusing. Of course that would require that you put some stock in the most historically acurate book in existance. By the way, no one has ever found Jesus' body and not for lack of trying.
You should have listened to your husband.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by dmarker
... And how can any judge close a church? The church could surely hire the ACLU to administer a legal pimp slap to any judiciary who could be stupid enough to dare.

I think this is a distorted reference to some property dispute.

[Kopji]

He used to have a character portrait (of himself?) on the website that looked just like Ned Fanders from The Simpsons. Too bad, it looks like it was taken down.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by JesFine
. . . Perhaps it is not even possible for a straight person to make someone else gay. . .

I dunno, If ms. Henn was the only woman available to me I think I would seriously consider turning to the dark side.

[Yahweh]

From Jack Chick's "Why did I write the birds and the bees?" (http://www.chick.com/birdsandbeesletter.asp):
I never dreamed that we would need a tract to help stem this tide in our schools. But I believe God has given us the perfect tract for kids.
Chick think's he God...

Silly fundie...

[farmermike]

Originally posted by Yahweh
From Jack Chick's "Why did I write the birds and the bees?" (http://www.chick.com/birdsandbeesletter.asp):

Chick think's he God...

Silly fundie...
Karen
fundamental-of or forming a foundation or basis, basic, esssential, primary, original, most important....
Chick is perhaps a pretty easy target but don't let that discourage you from pursuing the fundamental tennants of Christianity.
Some more Muggeridge...."It is true that these basic propositions of Christianity have got cluttered up with dogma of various kinds which I find often incomprehensible, irrelevant and even repugnant. All the same, I should be proud and happy to be able to call myself a Christian; to dare to measure myself against that sublimely high standard of human values and human behaviour. In this I take comfort from another saying of Pascal, thrown out like a lifeline to all skeptical minds throughout the ages-that whoever looks for God has found him." Jesus Rediscovered-Malcom Muggeridge Collins 1969
oh yeah-"At its most obscurantist and debased, the Christian position still seems to me preferable to any scientific-materialist one, however cogent and enlightened. The evangelist with his lurid tract, calling upon me to repent for the Day of Judgement is at hand, is a burning and shining light compared with the eugenist who claims ....." Muggeridge

[rebecca]

Originally posted by farmermike
. . . that whoever looks for God has found him." Jesus Rediscovered-Malcom Muggeridge Collins 1969


"I found Jesus. He was behind the couch the whole time." -- T-shirt.

Hey, so long as we're using snappy quotes as a conversion tool. . .

[Temporal Renegade]

Originally posted by Yahweh
From Jack Chick's "Why did I write the birds and the bees?" (http://www.chick.com/birdsandbeesletter.asp):

Chick think's he God...

Silly fundie...

Chick's are for kids!

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by farmermike
Karen
fundamental-of or forming a foundation or basis, basic, esssential, primary, original, most important....
Chick is perhaps a pretty easy target but don't let that discourage you from pursuing the fundamental tennants of Christianity.
Some more Muggeridge...."It is true that these basic propositions of Christianity have got cluttered up with dogma of various kinds which I find often incomprehensible, irrelevant and even repugnant. All the same, I should be proud and happy to be able to call myself a Christian; to dare to measure myself against that sublimely high standard of human values and human behaviour. In this I take comfort from another saying of Pascal, thrown out like a lifeline to all skeptical minds throughout the ages-that whoever looks for God has found him." Jesus Rediscovered-Malcom Muggeridge Collins 1969
oh yeah-"At its most obscurantist and debased, the Christian position still seems to me preferable to any scientific-materialist one, however cogent and enlightened. The evangelist with his lurid tract, calling upon me to repent for the Day of Judgement is at hand, is a burning and shining light compared with the eugenist who claims ....." Muggeridge
Just noticed this post, sorry for the late response.

Pascal's Wager doesnt mean anything, the primary reason being the Wager's ambiguity: If its better to "just believe" in any religion which offers a blissful afterlife, that seemly truistic sentiment is rendered useless due to the fact there are many many many religions which offer an afterlife, so which am I supposed to choose? Equally relevant in Pascal's Wager, perhaps God accepts atheists, and rejects fundies from Heaven.

As far as "the Christian position still seems to me preferable to any scientific-materialist one", I'd ask the question "Why?", then I'd extend that question to "Why not another religion?". I would prefer the Methodological Naturalist position because a logical systematic analysis of one's observations achieves much more intellectually than "faith" ever could.

When one person has just as much faith in their god as another person has in their god, the issue of "faith" is resolvable through two methods: A logical systematic analysis of one's observations (which is a rejection of faith, and exactly what I support above), or killing the other person. Hmmm...

[rebecca]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Pascal's Wager doesnt mean anything, the primary reason being the Wager's ambiguity: If its better to "just believe" in any religion which offers a blissful afterlife, that seemly truistic sentiment is rendered useless due to the fact there are many many many religions which offer an afterlife, so which am I supposed to choose? Equally relevant in Pascal's Wager, perhaps God accepts atheists, and rejects fundies from Heaven.


Another argument against Pascal's Wager: if a Christian uses this argument, he clearly has no respect for his own god. After all, what god is so easily fooled by a person saying that he believes when he clearly doesn't? After all, a confirmed atheist who is just covering the bases isn't going to believe with all his heart that a god exists.

Hey, didn't I kill this thread?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by KAW143
"If anyone tries to make you gay stay away from them!"

Well, I guess we should really stay away from that god guy, huh? He makes people gay! It said so on this T-shirt I saw, once. . .

Just because that guy in the bus station toilet said he was God, doesn't mean it's true. :p

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by KAW143
side note: if the residents of Sodom practiced sodomy and hence the word, what, exactly was it that the Gomorrahites did? Is there such a thing as gamorrahy?

Sodom was destroyed for its injustice, which evidently includes you know what.

Gommorah was destroyed for its fiscal irresponsibility.

The parallels with modern day San Francisco should be obvious. :p :D

[Temporal Renegade]

What's really scary is, years ago National Lampoon
(when it was still funny, that is) had a parody of a Chick tract in one of the issues; the art, writing, and message where so identical, you couldn't tell it from a real one.

I've been wracking my brain to remember which issue, though--I know I had it, I just can't find it!

Can anyone help?

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by farmermike

Karen
fundamental-of or forming a foundation or basis, basic, esssential, primary, original, most important....
Chick is perhaps a pretty easy target but don't let that discourage you from pursuing the fundamental tennants of Christianity.
Some more Muggeridge...."It is true that these basic propositions of Christianity have got cluttered up with dogma of various kinds which I find often incomprehensible, irrelevant and even repugnant. All the same, I should be proud and happy to be able to call myself a Christian; to dare to measure myself against that sublimely high standard of human values and human behaviour. In this I take comfort from another saying of Pascal, thrown out like a lifeline to all skeptical minds throughout the ages-that whoever looks for God has found him." Jesus Rediscovered-Malcom Muggeridge Collins 1969
oh yeah-"At its most obscurantist and debased, the Christian position still seems to me preferable to any scientific-materialist one, however cogent and enlightened. The evangelist with his lurid tract, calling upon me to repent for the Day of Judgement is at hand, is a burning and shining light compared with the eugenist who claims ....." Muggeridge

Okay, we go from mocking Chick because, well, he's just Chick, to a message about seriously pursuing Christianity. Nevermind the message here is not to revile christianity itself, but Chick, his messages of hate, and how truly un-humanitarian his message is. Same person who is admonishing us to find Christ is also using the "cherry picking" argument. And, well, let's face it, if she were a good christian, Farmermike would have obeyed her husband's wishes, and read the whole thread.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Temporal Renegade
What's really scary is, years ago National Lampoon
(when it was still funny, that is) had a parody of a Chick tract in one of the issues; the art, writing, and message where so identical, you couldn't tell it from a real one.

I've been wracking my brain to remember which issue, though--I know I had it, I just can't find it!

Can anyone help?

I don't know which issue, but the parody was titled Head Shop or Dead Shop? and featured among other things an explanation of why a smiley-face is a Satanic symbol. :)

[Temporal Renegade]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


I don't know which issue, but the parody was titled Head Shop or Dead Shop? and featured among other things an explanation of why a smiley-face is a Satanic symbol. :)

Yes, thank you! :)

Where the head shop is busted by Angel police, and the souls of the 'bad kids' are eternally 'darned'.

The hunt is on! Thanks again!

[farmermike]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Just noticed this post, sorry for the late response.

Pascal's Wager doesnt mean anything, the primary reason being the Wager's ambiguity: If its better to "just believe" in any religion which offers a blissful afterlife, that seemly truistic sentiment is rendered useless due to the fact there are many many many religions which offer an afterlife, so which am I supposed to choose? Equally relevant in Pascal's Wager, perhaps God accepts atheists, and rejects fundies from Heaven.

As far as "the Christian position still seems to me preferable to any scientific-materialist one", I'd ask the question "Why?", then I'd extend that question to "Why not another religion?". I would prefer the Methodological Naturalist position because a logical systematic analysis of one's observations achieves much more intellectually than "faith" ever could.

When one person has just as much faith in their god as another person has in their god, the issue of "faith" is resolvable through two methods: A logical systematic analysis of one's observations (which is a rejection of faith, and exactly what I support above), or killing the other person. Hmmm...

Guess the Pascal quote sounded kind of wishy washy out of context-would highly recommend the book, Jesus Rediscovered. Here's a question I pose to my logical/skeptical husband time to time. If a person were purely logical and had to choose between two belief systems(neither of which could be ruled out), and one posted some rather dire consequences for rejecting it, what would they do?
I don't think God cares what our motivation in pursuing Him is, that tends two work itself out as we get to know Him-not that we ever fully do. "For now we see through a glass darkly, we know in part, prophesy in part...then we shall know even as we are known" the Bible. Would like to continue, alas supper awaits.

[farmermike]

Originally posted by Suezoled
[B]

Okay, we go from mocking Chick because, well, he's just Chick, to a message about seriously pursuing Christianity. Nevermind the message here is not to revile christianity itself, but Chick, his messages of hate, and how truly un-humanitarian his message is. Same person who is admonishing us to find Christ is also using the "cherry picking" argument. And, well, let's face it, if she were a good christian, Farmermike would have obeyed her husband's wishes, and read the whole thread. [/
B]

Not that it would have done much to change my opinion. My husband can attest, that Christians are all too human- maybe a little more aware of their shortcomings?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Farmermike
Here's a question I pose to my logical/skeptical husband time to time. If a person were purely logical and had to choose between two belief systems(neither of which could be ruled out), and one posted some rather dire consequences for rejecting it, what would they do?



Choose based on fear.


But ... your scenario doesn't really live up to reality. Does it?

• There is not merely a choice between two, but more.
• Belief systems can be ruled out.
• You might face dire consequences for accepting a belief system, not merely for rejecting.
• A belief system which retaliates for rejecting it is fishy in itself.
• An acceptance based on fear may not be 'enough.'

So all in all your question is a bit unfair. ;)

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by farmermike


Not that it would have done much to change my opinion. My husband can attest, that Christians are all too human- maybe a little more aware of their shortcomings?

Well your opinion is certainly not fact then, is it? So your encouragement for others to find the tennats of christianity would of course be based on your own personal preference. And how are christians more aware of their shortcomings? Are you really lumping yourself in with folks like Jack Chick?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by farmermike
Guess the Pascal quote sounded kind of wishy washy out of context-would highly recommend the book, Jesus Rediscovered. Here's a question I pose to my logical/skeptical husband time to time. If a person were purely logical and had to choose between two belief systems(neither of which could be ruled out), and one posted some rather dire consequences for rejecting it, what would they do?
I think Lord Emsworth has nailed exactly the reason why Pascal's Wager is meaningless in reality.

[farmermike]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth




Choose based on fear.


But ... your scenario doesn't really live up to reality. Does it?

• There is not merely a choice between two, but more.
• Belief systems can be ruled out.
• You might face dire consequences for accepting a belief system, not merely for rejecting.
• A belief system which retaliates for rejecting it is fishy in itself.
• An acceptance based on fear may not be 'enough.'

So all in all your question is a bit unfair. ;)
Karen
Unfair?! Just as I thought, you're not purely logical-not that any of us really are.
1) As I see it (and I know this is an opinion), there is a choice for or against God as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. What do you make of a carpenter from a backwater in Judea, two thousand years ago, changing the course of human history? Jerusalem was not exactly the welcoming kind of place you would have expected a legend to take root.
2)I agree. A lot of belief systems can be ruled out but ultimately no one can prove a negative-that God doesn't exist. A look at the intricacies of our world/universe would seem to suggest a creator.
3) The early Christians certainly did and in many parts of the world, Christians still do.
4) Why shouldn't a decision of such magnitude carry any consequences when all my other day-to-day options do? Would God have nailed his Son to the cross for my sins if it didn't?
5)Acceptance based on fear would certainly not be enough but fear might be sufficient to propel someone in the right direction until they experience for themselves, "...how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ ...that surpasses knowledge.." Ephesians 3:18-19. If God is real and alive, then why should it surprise us that we can know him? That he wants to know us however, is certainly humbling.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by farmermike

Karen
Unfair?! Just as I thought, you're not purely logical-not that any of us really are.
(snipped)
5)Acceptance based on fear would certainly not be enough but fear might be sufficient to propel someone in the right direction until they experience for themselves, "...how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ ...that surpasses knowledge.." Ephesians 3:18-19. If God is real and alive, then why should it surprise us that we can know him? That he wants to know us however, is certainly humbling.

Oh wow.
farmermike, meet CFLarsen.

Anyway, advocating fear to find the religion that farmermike approves of is... wow... I think I busted something laughing. So much for a loving god, ne, farmermike?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by farmermike
1) As I see it (and I know this is an opinion), there is a choice for or against God as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. What do you make of a carpenter from a backwater in Judea, two thousand years ago, changing the course of human history? Jerusalem was not exactly the welcoming kind of place you would have expected a legend to take root.
There is no "choice" for or against God. Sure, people possess the ability to make decisions at their own accord, but that does not extend to the ability to consciously choose your own inner-convictions like flipping a toggle switch on a wall.

What is there to make of the carpenter from Nazereth? I think if in the unlikley chance there existed a Yeshua, his life is completely lost in myth and legend.

2)I agree. A lot of belief systems can be ruled out but ultimately no one can prove a negative-that God doesn't exist. A look at the intricacies of our world/universe would seem to suggest a creator.
It is very easy to prove God doesnt exist, all it takes is to define him. Lets say you define God as being infinitely powerful and infinitely almighty, then you ask him to make a rock so big he that even he couldnt lift it... oops, if God cant perform that task, then he is not almighty, therefore he doesnt exist, but if he can perform that task then he is not infinitely powerful and again he doesnt exist. By this point, people redefine God (or really they define a new God) with a modified set of characteristics.

There is nothing remarkable about our universe. From the looks of things, everything in the universe can be explained in terms of matter and natural phenomena (and that notion doesnt really scream "creator").

3) The early Christians certainly did and in many parts of the world, Christians still do.
Emsworth is not referring to persecution by humans, he is referring to the wrath of God to be suffered if you accept belief in him.

When speaking of the Christian God, this example could be cited:
If we use the bible as a reference, we can take a look at verse Romans 1:20, it gets across the point that God makes his existence self-evident through his Creation. Observation of this creation doesnt seem to look much different from a universe driven by purely natural forces, therefore by Romans 1:20 you shouldnt believe in God. Belief in God due to observations of the world around you is therefore incorrect, and this form of self-deceit warrants punishment by God.

4) Why shouldn't a decision of such magnitude carry any consequences when all my other day-to-day options do? Would God have nailed his Son to the cross for my sins if it didn't?
To the first question: You dont have a decision, your beliefs are merely a product of your environment.

To the second question: You are assuming the Gospels occurred as written, the historical accuracy of the Gospels are extremely extremely questionable.

5)Acceptance based on fear would certainly not be enough but fear might be sufficient to propel someone in the right direction until they experience for themselves, "...how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ ...that surpasses knowledge.." Ephesians 3:18-19. If God is real and alive, then why should it surprise us that we can know him? That he wants to know us however, is certainly humbling.
"Fear" and "humbling" are rather opposing words, are they not?


The general idea is the fact that Pascal's Wager is too vaguely defined to be considered "reason". In fact, I could easily respond to everything you just said above with "What if you're wrong... what if you're wrong... what if you're wrong" ad nauseum, after a while of that I think you would understand why Pascal's Wager is a completely useless tool to ground one's faith.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by farmermike
Karen
Unfair?! Just as I thought, you're not purely logical-not that any of us really are.



Of course it is unfair, because it very much distorts reality in favor of the answer that you would like to hear. It distorts reality to such a point that based on logic one has to give the answer that you want.



1) As I see it (and I know this is an opinion), there is a choice for or against God as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.



If you make it a choice between Christianity vs anything else then of course you can have your dichotomy. I do, however, judge Christianity to be a belief system that can be ruled out. (Your original post demanded a choice "between two belief systems(neither of which could be ruled out)")



What do you make of a carpenter from a backwater in Judea, two thousand years ago, changing the course of human history? Jerusalem was not exactly the welcoming kind of place you would have expected a legend to take root.



A legend you say? A legend, as far as I know, requires a real person at it's root. Something which Jesus Christ simply does not seem to be. And Jerusalem/Near East not the right place for legend to take root? Your kidding, right?



2)I agree. A lot of belief systems can be ruled out but ultimately no one can prove a negative-that God doesn't exist.



I agree. As long as we are talking about God in general and don't stick to the God of a specific religion you cannot indeed disprove the existence of some supreme Being.



A look at the intricacies of our world/universe would seem to suggest a creator.



None that I am aware of suggest a creator of the world/universe any more than they suggest a creator of the creator of the world/universe. I let at this point rule parsimony against any creators.



3) The early Christians certainly did and in many parts of the world, Christians still do.



But they have not always been on the receiving end of dire consequences. But on the giving end as well for quite a bit.

But anyways, things that happen to you during this life are immaterial for Pascal's Wager since these consequences are finite, while Pascals Wager rests on the infinte punishment of the Christian God against those who reject Him.

To be a little meany I could postulate a God who explicity blesses Christians with infinite punishment (for, say, worshipping a false God), and thusly take out the infinite punishment "advantage" of the Christian paradigm. A slight modification of your unfair question then gives another unfair question, namely:

If a person were purely logical and had to choose between two belief systems(neither of which could be ruled out), and the first posted some rather dire consequences for rejecting it, while the second posted dire consequences for accepting the first - what would they do?



4) Why shouldn't a decision of such magnitude carry any consequences when all my other day-to-day options do?



Oh come on. You receive infinite punishment for asking questions, being skeptical, basing your worldview on that which can be observed and tested etc. You are punished for not just having faith in what cannot, by definition, be tested. If that is not fishy, then I don't know what is.



Would God have nailed his Son to the cross for my sins if it didn't?



Jesus didn't exist. The Christian God doesn't exist. And since without the Christian God the concept of sins (going agaist God) doesn't make sense we do hardly need to go on.



5)Acceptance based on fear would certainly not be enough but fear might be sufficient to propel someone in the right direction until they experience for themselves, "...how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ ...that surpasses knowledge.." Ephesians 3:18-19. If God is real and alive, then why should it surprise us that we can know him? That he wants to know us however, is certainly humbling.



I find it rather stumping that He, being omniscient (all knowing), doesn't know us already.

But tartly comments aside, the experience which you speak of was nowhere indicated in your question. Your question is solely based on fear, and featured no additional clues, for neither side.



Edited for formatting

[farmermike]

Originally posted by Suezoled


Oh wow.
farmermike, meet CFLarsen.

Anyway, advocating fear to find the religion that farmermike approves of is... wow... I think I busted something laughing. So much for a loving god, ne, farmermike?

You were so busy laughing that you missed the part about a loving God dying for you-hardy har har.

[farmermike]

What year is it? oh yeah, 2004 years since the birth of someone who didn't exist and whose early followers went to their deaths proclaiming, not only that he did, but that he does. Do you?

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by farmermike
What year is it? oh yeah, 2004 years since the birth of someone who didn't exist and whose early followers went to their deaths proclaiming, not only that he did, but that he does. Do you?



Do I what? But anyway, I guess no, since your question(?) is flawed and circular, to say the least. On many levels.

[rebecca]

Originally posted by farmermike


You were so busy laughing that you missed the part about a loving God dying for you-hardy har har.

How does a god die? And then didn't he come back? If a god is infinite and powerful, what's one puny weekend being dead? Sounds to me like he was just looking for attention.:D

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by farmermike


You were so busy laughing that you missed the part about a loving God dying for you-hardy har har.

Erm, one again, you miss the whole idea that christianity, especially your opinion, is just an opinion. Yet once again you're cherry-picking so that you can take what you want to hear and shove the rest away.

[Polux]

Originally posted by farmermike
Maybe instead of reading Chick so religiously, you could open a bible and see if that 's equally amusing. Of course that would require that you put some stock in the most historically acurate book in existance.

That book being...?
Why change the subject when you were talking about the Bible! (a book that could be regarded as amusing only if it wasn't taken seriously by so many.

[Martin]

Originally posted by rebecca
How does a god die? And then didn't he come back? If a god is infinite and powerful, what's one puny weekend being dead? Sounds to me like he was just looking for attention.:D This is the concept that lead to the rather interesting thread title 'Jesus had a really bad weekend for your sins' on another board.

[geni]

Originally posted by rebecca


How does a god die? And then didn't he come back? If a god is infinite and powerful, what's one puny weekend being dead? Sounds to me like he was just looking for attention.:D

A version of this was one of the major theological disputes in the early church. The argument boiled down to how human jesus was. I can't recall the result off hand but I do remeber that they preposed the idea that jesus had two souls at one point.

The most historically acurate book in existance. s probably some book on population statistcs or 20th centery arictecture.

[farmermike]

Originally posted by rebecca


How does a god die? And then didn't he come back? If a god is infinite and powerful, what's one puny weekend being dead? Sounds to me like he was just looking for attention.:D

If I had invented God, it would be all neat and tidy and he'd look a lot like Santa Clause and this world similar to Disney Land. And as for the cherry picker guy, what am I tossing out?

[farmermike]

Karen again

I think I know the charges this will provoke, that I think I'm so important that I had to invent a God who agreed but here goes anyway. What are you people so intent on defending? The right to be inconsequential, random conglomerations of worthless dust?

[AtheistArchon]

What are you people so intent on defending? The right to be inconsequential, random conglomerations of worthless dust?

- *shrug* I don't view myself as inconsequential. I rather pity the people who need religion to bolster their self esteem.

- I don't view myself as worthless. I rather pity the people who can only find self-worth in imaginary, invisible friends from 2000 years ago who speak telepathically. (Apparently.)

- Dust? Well kinda. Star dust, to be exact. But more to the point, I believe what I and these folks are defending is the right to demand evidence for extraordinary beliefs like yours. It's no great surprise that you paint nonbelief to be terrible, worthless, and so on. It's possible that your belief gives you a sense of worth... and that's great. But we see things differently, we need no such belief system.

- Furthermore, it doesn't help our cynicism to be spoken to by Christians in a condescending tone. The applied meaning behind your comment here is that unless you're a Christian, you are worthless and inconsequential. That's vapid reasoning.

[rebecca]

Originally posted by farmermike


If I had invented God, it would be all neat and tidy and he'd look a lot like Santa Clause and this world similar to Disney Land. And as for the cherry picker guy, what am I tossing out?

You're helping to invent your god everyday. That's how myths work, at least the good ones. They change and adapt to fit the current society, like the way the Greek gods merged with the Roman and Egyptian gods over time. In the same way, your religion keeps changing the meaning and personality of your god to fit the changing times. Soon, your god will probably be so far removed from what it was originally that it will be like a whole new god, or maybe (hopefully) it will be replaced with reason and common sense.

So anyway, it's a pretty short hop to turning Santa into a god. Kids already get the two confused. I remember accidentally praying to Santa at Xmas time to get those presents I wanted. And come on, we all know by now that Jesus is not the "reason for the season," nor was he the reason in the very first place.

So I say go for it. I can't imagine any bloody crusades taking place over dear old Kris Kringle. And I don't expect that anyone will thank Santa when they score that touchdown, or make that hit movie. In fact, everything done in Santa's name is giving and loving. Just do us a favor and make it the American version. Some other Santas beat children and such as part of their myths.

[farmermike]

I didn't say you were worthless, and as a christian, I believe exactly the opposite. I simply asked what you think. I would also suggest that as an atheist, that if you don't believe something along the lines of what I surmised, then you haven't faced your dilemma head on. As for the condescending attitude, you're right and I apologize.

[farmermike]

Another of God's under- advertised attributes as outlined in the Bible, is his unchanging nature. As I said before, if I had invented God I'd get rid of all the parts that challenge my right to self determination. I don't make the news, I just report it.

[rebecca]

Originally posted by farmermike
Another of God's under- advertised attributes as outlined in the Bible, is his unchanging nature. As I said before, if I had invented God I'd get rid of all the parts that challenge my right to self determination. I don't make the news, I just report it.

That's interesting. So you think your god was wrong in making you the way he did?

Also, your god should probably take out a newspaper ad concerning his unchanging nature. Used to be, he demanded that a man marry his brother's widow, but it looks to me as though he changed his mind, about that and many other things.

And of course, at one time he spoke to people pretty clearly, with burning bushes, angels descending from the heavens, floods. Either he changed or he ran out of things to say. Oh, or we can now explain things like rainbows with science instead of making up fairy tales about them.

Look, I'm not here to convince you to give up your god. This thread was started to ridicule Jack Chick.

Are you here to stand up for him and his beliefs?

[Phil]

Originally posted by rebecca
That's interesting. So you think your god was wrong in making you the way he did? . . .

Good question, Rebecca.

These types of comments (farmermike's, not yours) if nothing else, bring to light some basic problems inherent in creationism and ID.

The creationists are sure they were made in God's image. But wait, it appears not all are happy with that image:
. . . if I had invented God I'd get rid of all the parts that challenge my right to self determination. . .

And of course IDers take the blended belief that human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided the process. They argue that life is so complex that only some sort of intelligent designer, whether called God or something else, must be involved.

But both of these groups think that the human form is the final product, that we're special. And not just because we rode the galactic short bus.

For the creationists, a single wave of an almighty hand, and here we are; perfection. Oh wait, I forgot, some of them are not happy with parts of God's design. Okay then.

Maybe I'm wrong, but to me, having flaws in a design doesn't constitute very impressive work, especially for . . . Oh, I don't know . . . a God!

For the IDers on the other hand, humans are ready for the showroom floor. God finally worked out the kinks, and it only took him millions of years. Wait, you say all the kinks aren't worked out. (Inverted vision, organs with no function, vulnerability to disease, etc. etc..)

Again, I could be wrong, but to me, taking so long on a project that still has such crappy elements doesn't seem very impressive for say . . . Oh, I don't know . . . a God!

It seems about on par, however, for naturally occuring evolution.

Of course, someone will no doubt assure me that god works in mysterious ways.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by farmermike


If I had invented God, it would be all neat and tidy and he'd look a lot like Santa Clause and this world similar to Disney Land. And as for the cherry picker guy, what am I tossing out?

I think I'd have to seriously consider worshiping a god if it had create a world full of amusing robot pirates. :)

[Temporal Renegade]

Originally posted by Piscivore


I think I'd have to seriously consider worshiping a god if it had create a world full of amusing robot pirates. :)

YARRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!

[An Infinite Ocean]

Originally posted by farmermike You were so busy laughing that you missed the part about a loving God dying for you-hardy har har.
I don't think I'll ever understand why Jesus needed to die for my sins. What's that all about? Is god really so warped that he requires blood sacrifice? Is he so savage that he cannot forgive his own creations until his son has been brutally killed? I think most Christians spew this nonsense forth without actually bothering to think why Jesus may have needed to die in the first place.

Oh, and perhaps you might do us the benefit of clarifying whether or not you support Jack Chick. Your... er... unusual contribution to this thread would indicate that you share his vile views. I'm sure that's not the case, but you really should make yourself clear.

[evildave]

Originally posted by Temporal Renegade


YARRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!

Isn't that more a pirate cyborg?

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by farmermike
...
Of course that would require that you put some stock in the most historically acurate book in existance. By the way, no one has ever found Jesus' body and not for lack of trying.

I recall reading in that book that Jesus rose from the dead, talked to the apostles, and then ascended into heaven. Of course no one's found the body. Yeesh! Don't you read your Bible?

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Hahahahaha...are you sure those Jack Chick comics aren't a parody? They cant be for real??
Jack Chick is for real. Every so often I find his tracts on the bus. I'm planning on starting a collection of his idiocy.

The mere concept of a God that'll take people who pull crap and sin their entire life if they accept Jesus and "repent" into heaven, but won't take people who have spent their lives trying to good by others (like Jesus told us to do).

I'm pretty much an athiest, myself. I can accept that there was a Jesus, who did say "Be nice to each other", started a mystery cult and got nailed to a tree for it. Jesus was a cool guy. Some of his fanclub sucks.

ETA: I wanted to toss a few more things in here.

Gods do die. Greek gods died, Hindu gods died, and generally all gods of the vegetation die and are reborn in the spring.

Time for my *sshole moment: If you get up three days later, it's not much of a sacrifice.

A caprtener from Judea changed the world. So did a German house-painter.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by farmermike

If I had invented God, it would be all neat and tidy and he'd look a lot like Santa Clause and this world similar to Disney Land. And as for the cherry picker guy, what am I tossing out?

I think I know the charges this will provoke, that I think I'm so important that I had to invent a God who agreed but here goes anyway. What are you people so intent on defending? The right to be inconsequential, random conglomerations of worthless dust?

Second question first: the belief in a higher power, a deity, etc does not give me as a human being a sense of self worth, nor does it make me worthless. I am intent on defending nothing save the basic idea that you are as important as the rest of us, and the feeling that your belief -your faith- invokes little or nothing in terms of one's self worth.

Now as for cherry picking: you're throwing out the pits. Read a book? You mean a Bible? The King James version of the bible, may I assume? You know, the one that's a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation, etc, where each and every version is updated, edited, interpretated, and edited some more? After all, the Hebrew version is rather different, what with the passages of such things as the Book of Enoch, and Esdras, describing the descent of angels who were barred from heaven (yup, that nasty war of heaven).

The Hebrew version also has Eve as the second wife of Adam; though it might not have been Lilith, God was displeased enough in his attempt to make woman that he made her again. (Not such a perfect god after all, is he?)

Well, but I would assume we are talking King James' Version:

-how about the law that if a man rapes your virgin daughter, he need only pay, what was it, 30 shekhels of silver to the dad, and then he must take the raped woman as his wife?
-if you are a woman, and bear a child, you are unclean for X number of days. If you bear a male child, you are unclean for 1 week. If you bear a female, you are unclean for 2 weeks.
-if a man has an "emission" he will be unclean until the evening.
-if a man sleeps with a woman and her mother, all 3 will be burned alive. In fact, if you sleep with your daddy's wife or your daughter-in-law, you'll all be put to death, no excuses, no pleading.
-if you suffer deformity, you are forbidden to approach and partake of the bread of god.
-and who can forget the adage" eye for eye, tooth for tooth."

And that is just Leviticus, mind you.

Ps: i hate disney land and santa claus. One is very corny and overpriced, the other is so very... well James Randi doesn't like it when people compare him to Santa Claus, as I guess it often happens.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by farmermike
Another of God's under- advertised attributes as outlined in the Bible, is his unchanging nature

And yet there are examples of him/her/it changing all the time. Changing his mind after Noah's flood. (Showing remorse at his actions) and the transition from the old testament to the new testament. (God changes his laws for his people)

Doesn't seem that unchanging to me.

*Edit*

Blah. Slow on the draw again.

[Temporal Renegade]

Originally posted by evildave


Isn't that more a pirate cyborg?

You mean, sort of a 'Pi-borg'?

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Temporal Renegade


You mean, sort of a 'Pi-borg'?

Can we still say "arrrggghhhh!"?

[farmermike]

Ah yes, the persistent and thorny issue of Jack Chick. First of all, I have only recently made his "acquaintance" and therefore hesitate to make any binding pronouncements. That being said, the cartoon about gays was certainly offensive. Do I think homosexuality is a sin? I'd have to side with the Bible on this one, yes. Do I think God loves me more than my homosexual neighbour? No. Do I think I sin? Yes. Does that make it O.K.? No. Does God forgive me? Yes. Does he promise to help me break the cycle? Yes.
Rebecca-I don't think that God made a mistake in making me. I was alluding to the struggle to subjugate my desires to God's-granted I'm pretty good at doing my own thing anyway, (not something I'm proud of).
But back to the heart of the matter a la C.S. Lewis. "Belief-accepting or regarding as true the doctrines of Christianity. That is fairly simple. But what does puzzle people-at least it used to puzzle me-is the fact that Christians regard faith in this sense as a virtue. I used to ask how on earth it can be a virtue-what is there moral or immoral about believing or not believing a set of statements? Obviously, I used to say, a sane man accepts or rejects any statement, not because he wants to or does not want to, but because the evidence seems to him good or bad. If he were mistaken about the goodness or badness of the evidence that would not mean he was abad man but only that he was not very clever. And if he thought the evidence bad but
tried to force himself to believe in spite of it, that would be merely stupid.
Well, I think I still take that view. But what I did not see then-and a good many people do not see still-was this. I was assuming that if the human mind once accepts a thing as true it will automatically go on regarding it as true, until some real reason for reconsidering it turns up. In fact, I was assuming that the human mind is completely ruled by reason. But that is not so. For example, my reason is perfectly convinced by good evidence that anaesthetics do not smother me and that properly trained surgeons do not start operating until I am unconscious. But that does not alter the fact that when they have me down on the table and clap their horrible mask over my face, a mere childish panic begins inside me. I start thinking I am going to choke, and I am afraid they will start cutting me up before I am properly under. In other words, I lose my faith in anaesthetics. It is not reason that is taking away my faith: on the contrary, my faith is based on reason. It is my imagination and emotions. The battle is between faith and reason on one side and emotion and imagination on the other.....
NOw just the same thing happens about Christianity. I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of the evidence is against it. That is not the point at which Faith comes in. But supposing a man's reason once decides that the wight of the evidence is for it. I can tell that man what is going to hapen to him in the next few weeks. THere will come a moment when there is bad news, or he is in trouble, or is living among a lot of other people who do not believe it, and all at once his emotions will rise up and carry out a sort of blitz on his belief. Or else there will come a moment when he wants a woman , or wants to tell a lie, or feels very pleased with himself, or sees a chance of making a little money in some way that is not perfectly fair; some moment, in fact, at which it would be very convenient if Christianity were not true. And once again his wishes and desires will carry out a blitz. I am not talking of moments at which any real new reasons against Christianity turn up. Those have to be faced and that is a different mater. I am talking about moments when a mere mood rises up against it.
Now Faith, in the sense in which I am here using the word, is the art of holding on to things your reason hasonce accepted, in spite of your changing moods. For moods will change, whatever view your reason takes. I know that by experience. Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianiaty looked terribly probable. This rebellion of your moods against your real self is going to come anyway. That is why Faith is such a necessary virtue: unless you teach your moods where they get off, you can never be either a sound Christian or even a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and fro, whith its beliefs really dependent on the weather and the state of its digestion. " Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis

I think there were other objections but I'm typed out for now.

[rebecca]

Originally posted by farmermike
Ah yes, the persistent and thorny issue of Jack Chick. First of all, I have only recently made his "acquaintance" and therefore hesitate to make any binding pronouncements. That being said, the cartoon about gays was certainly offensive. Do I think homosexuality is a sin? I'd have to side with the Bible on this one, yes. Do I think God loves me more than my homosexual neighbour? No. Do I think I sin? Yes. Does that make it O.K.? No. Does God forgive me? Yes. Does he promise to help me break the cycle? Yes.

Is this device getting old? Yes.
But anyway: please be specific when you talk about siding with the Bible. I assume you refer to the King James, and not the original text, which is at best noncommital on the issue of homosexuality.

So to be clear: you don't agree with Jack Chick's methods?

Rebecca-I don't think that God made a mistake in making me. I was alluding to the struggle to subjugate my desires to God's-granted I'm pretty good at doing my own thing anyway, (not something I'm proud of).
But back to the heart of the matter a la C.S. Lewis. . . . (snipped)
Quoting others to illustrate your point is one thing. Reproducing an entire essay is another. I'm not in a discussion with Lewis, I'm in a discussion with you, and accordingly, I'd like to know what you think of things.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by farmermike
Ah yes, the persistent and thorny issue of Jack Chick. First of all, I have only recently made his "acquaintance" and therefore hesitate to make any binding pronouncements. (snipped)

So you judge us on our threads before you even read the whole dang thing, but you won't make judgement on Jack Chick, whom this whole thread is about farcing anyway.

(snipped)
Well, I think I still take that view. But what I did not see then-and a good many people do not see still-was this. I was assuming that if the human mind once accepts a thing as true it will automatically go on regarding it as true, until some real reason for reconsidering it turns up. In fact, I was assuming that the human mind is completely ruled by reason. But that is not so. (snipped)
If a human mind were ruled by reason I really wonder if you'd believe in something as supernatural as a god.

(major snippage)

Now Faith, in the sense in which I am here using the word, is the art of holding on to things your reason hasonce accepted, in spite of your changing moods. For moods will change, whatever view your reason takes. I know that by experience. Now that I am a Christian I do have moods in which the whole thing looks very improbable: but when I was an atheist I had moods in which Christianiaty looked terribly probable. (snipped) Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis

I think there were other objections but I'm typed out for now.

Ah, the old "I was an atheist too!" statement. Assuming you are speaking for yourself through the massive quoting of C.S Lewis (though you should quote your sources a bit more extensively or at least provide a link next time if one is available), you argue for blind and turning away from questions, after all, in the interest of being comfortable in your christian god's embrace, or at least in the projection of what you think the christian god approves of.

Anyway, Jack Chick is an agent of mass hilarity, spewing his hatred of gays, roman catholics, non-King James versions of Bibles, Halloween, etc etc all over the place.

[farmermike]

I'm not arguing for "blind and turning away from questions", I think Lewis said if you decide that the weight of the evidence is against it, so be it.
Re the massive quoting of Lewis, I'm just trying to present another perspective that I think most people on this thread, have been way too dismissive of. My real beef is atheists who think they are more intelligent/enlightened than christians, simply because they discount God. But what did you think of reason and faith vs. emotion and imagination?

C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity William Collins and Sons 1952 pg.62
*Common objection
"Here is another thing that used to puzzle me. Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what his arrangements aout the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through him..."
Romans 2:14-15 "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law...they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now defending them."
*About the old testament, I think an eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth was meant to discourage excessive retailiation, you know-you're whole family for my tooth.
*Authenticity
" there are now more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions and we have more than 24,oo manuscript copies of protions of the New Testament in existance today. No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the Illiad by Homer is second with only 543 manuscripts that still survive.The average time lapse between original and later copies of Greek classical authors is dated at a thousand years or more after the author's death-Latin somewhat less down to 3 centuries....some virtually complete New Testament books, as well as extensive fragmentary manuscripts of many parts of the New Testament date back to one centruy from the origianal writings Evidence That Demands a Verdict Josh McDowell Nelson1972 pg.42
Now recognizing that this could go on ad infinitum, I bid you farewell and refer you to the great Christian apologists, Francis Schaeffer is another good one, over Jack Chick.

"Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater"( the bathwater being some of the human addendums-religious observances etc.) Au revoir as we say in Quebec.

[rebecca]

Originally posted by farmermike
I'm not arguing for "blind and turning away from questions", I think Lewis said if you decide that the weight of the evidence is against it, so be it.
Re the massive quoting of Lewis, I'm just trying to present another perspective that I think most people on this thread, have been way too dismissive of. My real beef is atheists who think they are more intelligent/enlightened than christians, simply because they discount God. But what did you think of reason and faith vs. emotion and imagination?

What perspective have we so casually dismissed? That of a disgusting bigot named Jack Chick? Gee, sorry, please tell us what bits of his philosophy we missed.

And who here, besides you, said atheists are more intelligent than Christians?

C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity William Collins and Sons 1952 pg.62
*Common objection
"Here is another thing that used to puzzle me. Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what his arrangements aout the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through him..."

Why did you quote this? What's your point?
Romans 2:14-15 "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law...they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now defending them."
*About the old testament, I think an eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth was meant to discourage excessive retailiation, you know-you're whole family for my tooth.

I think you missed the great deal of vitriol with which that phrase is written. Re-read, and get back to us.

*Authenticity
" there are now more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions and we have more than 24,oo manuscript copies of protions of the New Testament in existance today. No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the Illiad by Homer is second with only 543 manuscripts that still survive.The average time lapse between original and later copies of Greek classical authors is dated at a thousand years or more after the author's death-Latin somewhat less down to 3 centuries....some virtually complete New Testament books, as well as extensive fragmentary manuscripts of many parts of the New Testament date back to one centruy from the origianal writings Evidence That Demands a Verdict Josh McDowell Nelson1972 pg.42

Again, what's your point? So what?

Now recognizing that this could go on ad infinitum, I bid you farewell and refer you to the great Christian apologists, Francis Schaeffer is another good one, over Jack Chick.

"Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater"( the bathwater being some of the human addendums-religious observances etc.) Au revoir as we say in Quebec.
Yep, best to leave before you accidentally say anything of substance, or actually challenge your mind in the least bit. Bye!

[Temporal Renegade]

Fair massive Snippage hath occured:


Originally posted by Suezoled


Anyway, Jack Chick is an agent of mass hilarity, spewing his hatred of gays, roman catholics, non-King James versions of Bibles, Halloween, etc etc all over the place.


And, the saddest thing is, almost everyone still flips through them--they're like a very bad car wreck: No matter how bad it is, how sick it will make you, you still feel the need to take a peek.

But, unlike a wreck, we can sometimes find something to laugh at.

Even if Chick & Co. are deadly serious.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by farmermike
(snipped) My real beef is atheists who think they are more intelligent/enlightened than christians, simply because they discount God. But what did you think of reason and faith vs. emotion and imagination?
False dilemma, false assumption, straw man burning, get the marshmallows!

C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity William Collins and Sons 1952 pg.62
*Common objection
"Here is another thing that used to puzzle me. Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what his arrangements aout the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through him..."
Really? You know, huh? Prove it. Where't the evidence. Send me a celestial being who is a messenger of the christian god you worship, telling me that your way is the best... or perhaps CS Lewis, being another mortal, is also making assumptions?

Romans 2:14-15 "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law...they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now defending them."
*About the old testament, I think an eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth was meant to discourage excessive retailiation, you know-you're whole family for my tooth.
You are, you realize, the same person who argued for the unchanging nature of god. God decreed to his worshippers eye for eye, tooth for tooth. But then again, he also said "if your hand offends thee, cut it off, for better to live maimed than in contempt." Which is the very same god who said "he who is malformed/crippled/ etc and enters my home is committing an abomination, and is unclean." Hmmm... and do stop arguing for the noble savage, as that clan did not believe in christianity.

*Authenticity
" there are now more than 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. (snipped)
Now recognizing that this could go on ad infinitum, I bid you farewell and refer you to the great Christian apologists, Francis Schaeffer is another good one, over Jack Chick.
Appeal to popularity to verify authenticity? Still, you do know that christianity is a minority religion in the world, right?
And HELLO! This thread isn't about christianity, it's about Jack Chick, who just happens to be a hateful, merciless, ugly manifestation of christianity. Jack Chick could be Jewish, or Hindu, or Buddhist, or an atheist, and he would still be laughed at, for his vile venom that he spews and tries to disguise as lessons from some loving god.