Is it all like this?

[neutrino_cannon]

*enters Chick bashing mode*

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0037/0037_01.asp

So, we're to believe that our actions have no bearing on the afterlife, save that we accept Jesus (it says that explicitly)?


I think I'll go gass some kurds, kill 25% of the Cambodian population, do in six million Jews and then starve some peasants in the Ukraine. Then I accept Jesus and I'm fine right?

Well, perhaps not after killing the Jews. How many Christians are this nutty?
Appoligies to all the walnuts, pecans et. al.

[fidiot]

Here's my theory on Jack T. Chick, assuming this is his real name: because of his last name, he got constantly harassed in high school, and because of that he turned to this nonsense. :D

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by fidiot
Here's my theory on Jack T. Chick, assuming this is his real name: because of his last name, he got constantly harassed in high school, and because of that he turned to this nonsense. :D


Why not drugs or the occult?

[fidiot]

Circumstances, maybe? I'd imagine that most of the people who become hardcore Christians do so because they have nowhere else to turn, they are very depressed, have major crisis in their lives, etc. A perfectly sane person would not accept beliefs like those in Chick's website.

[Jethro]

Well, yes and no.

A person who believes that also rationalizes that by saying things like a person who truly accepts Jesus as their savior won't do bad things, or at least they'll be aided by Jesus in doing good. Plus they would probably argue that a person who said "I'll do lots of evil and then accept Jesus and be saved," would never truly accept Jesus. I think we can ignore the Scotsmen fallacy in this case.

Notice that the hitman, upon acceptance of Jesus, becomes a nice guy. Well, if he had just gone ahead and shot the Marshall and been killed in the ensuing gunfight, he probably would not have gone to heaven, since this would be a sign of his not accepting Jesus.

So yes, if your Stalter Pot character did all of that and then truly accepted Jesus, your Chick-type Christian would accept that said person would go to heaven. But said Chick-type Christian would find it highly unlikely for said person to truly accept Jesus.

[Mercutio]

quote:"A perfectly sane person would not accept beliefs like those in Chick's website."

perhaps a perfectly sane society might not, but a perfectly sane person growing up in a community where this was accepted certainly would. I remember the equivalent of these things being distributed in literature racks at church--when I died, I was going to see a movie of my entire life, with all the population of the world watching all the embarrassing parts, and if I was not saved, the movie ends with me diving into a lake of fire. This was before I was 14 yet. A whole community of good people believed this (and they really were good people), so who was I to argue?

Now, of course, it both amuses me and angers me. Yes, the Chick tracts themselves, but more the society they represent. You get the world's biggest carrot and the world's biggest stick, and by god, people are going to do what you want them to. To me, it doesn't even really help that a good many (I assume a strong majority, but who knows) truly believe that they are doing this for the benefit of other people. What a waste.

[fidiot]

perhaps a perfectly sane society might not, but a perfectly sane person growing up in a community where this was accepted certainly would.

I aplologize for not being clear about this. What you just wrote I took as a given, this is understandable. What I meant was that if a person didn't know about it before, and someone would give him/her a bunch of chick tracts or some more information about that branch of christianity, a sane person would dismiss them as nonsense.

[Mercutio]

I didn't take any offense--we are in major agreement here. Although I think I'd actually prefer it if I thought, as you say,

"I'd imagine that most of the people who become hardcore Christians do so because they have nowhere else to turn, they are very depressed, have major crisis in their lives, etc."

Rather, I think that most who become hardcore christians become so in much the same manner as any of us become hardcore anything: normal socialization. This, to me, is more depressing. Rather than just the fringes, a whole society of potential Chick-feed.

[c4ts]

The best way to bash Chick Tracts I've discovered is to turn them into Franko comics. They make so much more sense when you erase the original dialogue and come up with a story of your own, so a story which is deliberately utter nonsense will still make sense in the same way. All Jack Chick does is write a sermon/hate-speech where he tells a boring story that he made up after a night of drinking and bible reading, and express that story in pictures and cheesecloth thin characters. Erase the words of the sermon, and it's just some bad guys plotting to do bad things until the good guys show up to prove them wrong, which somehow defeats them by being right in the end. If you ain't with Gawd then you must be with Sayt'n, and Gawd always wins in the end. Put yer check in the holy "yes" box or you go to HEYELL!

[c4ts]

I just realize that Jack Chick's arguments for what he thinks is justice are the same as the Ancient Greek arguments favoring injustice. Imagine the debate:

Greeks: Justice is weaker than injustice, becuase it is better to commit injustice than to recieve it. The unjust are few and strong, and they take advantage of the just, who are weak and many. A king will make a law: don't kill the king, which is an unjust law. A just man will follow all the laws, so he can never be king. The strongest man of all is the one who stays in charge. We have a gigantic army of Hoplites and you're just a church full of wierdos, so we are more powerful, therefore we own you unjustly, and rightly so.

Chick: Injustice is weaker than justice, becuase it is better to recieve injustice than to commit it. The unjust are many and weak, and they take advantage of the just, who are few and strong. A king will make a law: don't kill the king, and it is a just law. You can't kill the king because God is the real king who told the other king to make that law so if you even think about killing that king God will send you straight to Hell for breaking the rules! God is in charge forever because he's God and he's way stronger than any man!

Greeks: We'll kill you and enslave your women and children if you don't join us.

Chick: God will punish you for not joining us so you'd better.

Greeks: We'll kick your ass personally if you don't join us.

Chick: God will save us from you.

Greeks: God won't save your women and children from slavery, and he won't save your ass from being kicked.

Chick: Go kick our ass in battle, because each one of us who dies goes straight to heaven and lives with Jesus, and each one of you who dies goes to hell and has to sit on the devil's grill forever while he puts worms up your ass. If we kill you all we go to heaven for doing God's will, and if you kill us you go to hell for breaking God's commandments, and God won't let me die because he's bigger and powerfuller and richer than you! Our brand of worship is ten times more effective than the leading brand! Our customers actually go all the way to heaven, and it will only cost you the rest of your life on Earth and your immortal soul. Act now, and you'll recieve a lifetime supply of! (someone throws a javelin through his head)

Greeks: Yay! Now we can get back to killing each other without pretending to be moral!

(And their empire was destroyed by bloodthisty Christians who successfully prevented the emergence of rational thought in the Western world for 1500 years. The end.)

[Truzi]

I believe Plato argued it is better to suffer injustice than to inflict it, though for far more logical reasons than Chick.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Truzi
I believe Plato argued it is better to suffer injustice than to inflict it, though for far more logical reasons than Chick.

Actually, Plato says it is bad to suffer injustice, but the one who commits injustice suffers it just as much, so it is no better to commit it than to suffer. I don't think he ever says it is actually better to recieve injustice, since Plato says justice is equality in ratio (a:b::c:d), and because it's math, it must be divine truth.

[neutrino_cannon]

he he... Franko Vs. Chick:


Franko: YOU are made of ATOMS
ATOMS obey TLOP
YOU obey TLOP!


Chick: You satanist/homosexual/which/devil promotor/Jehovah's Witness/Catholic/Atheist/pagan/spiritualist/unitarian/atheist!

Franko: Hah, you cannot refute my claims because I will not listen! That makes about as much sense as a four sided triangle!

Chick: You worship Satan!

Franko: I have posted here for years and you have not refuted a single one of my claims you A-theist!

Chick: The "Godess" you speak of is female! GOD is a male, and you are a satanist/homosexual/which/devil promotor/Jehovah's Witness/Catholic/Atheist/pagan/spiritualist/unitarian/atheist!

Franko: Are you saying that you can break TLOP?

Chick: Ha ha, but I have disproven you, for TLOP is devil worship, any sort of intellectualism is an affront to God!

Franko: The Godess will send you ito the abyss!

Chick: Accept Christ!

Franko: WE FOLLOW the GODESS! and you cannot prove our specious nonsense wrong!

Chick: Evolution is full of holes!

Franko: Oh yeah! Well then what do you propose holds atoms together?

Chick: The sould of CHRIST!

Franko: It's gravitons/souls!

Chick: Gravitons are a fallacy to turn us to satan!

Franko: That does it, (shoots chick, gets flung into abyss for using a handgun, which obviously violates TLOP)

[Samus]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0037/0037_01.asp

So, we're to believe that our actions have no bearing on the afterlife, save that we accept Jesus (it says that explicitly)? By golly, it does say that! I can be a law-abiding, good, decent human being my whole life. Then, when I die, I go to hell and burn in eternal pain because I don't accept Jesus as my savior? Am I the only one that thinks Jesus is an ********* for doing that to me?

Last I knew, God wasn't supposed to hate anybody. Seems an awfully harsh punishment for not worshiping someone I can't see, can't talk to, and who allows bad things to happen to me and people I care about.

I'm an agnostic, but I'm pretty certain if there is a God/Jesus, he doesn't behave like Jack Chick thinks he does.

[Kiri]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon



Why not drugs or the occult?

Yeah, at least those are HONEST vices!

[Vorticity]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
Why not drugs or the occult?
In what way is it not occult?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
*enters Chick bashing mode*

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0037/0037_01.asp

So, we're to believe that our actions have no bearing on the afterlife, save that we accept Jesus (it says that explicitly)?



You forgot... it's gotta be sincere.

Not sure how LONG it has to be sincere, though. Is 5 minutes good enough?

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Vorticity

In what way is it not occult?

A valid point. I suppose your view is that it doesn't matter which sky daddy you talk to?

[Vorticity]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon

A valid point. I suppose your view is that it doesn't matter which sky daddy you talk to?
Sure!
But you just gave me a great idea! How about a send-up of this infamous Chick Tract:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
except with the words changed, and the title changed from "Big Daddy?" to "Sky Daddy?" ?

On another note:
I had previously been familiar with an extremely heinous, disgusting Chick Tract called "Lisa", much worse than the one you cited. It was about this guy who rapes his little daughter, and even lets his friends in on the action. Then one day, he accepts Jesus, and POOF! All is forgiven. He's suddenly a great guy! Straight to heaven... :mad:
People all over the internet have been linking to this one for years as a prime example of why Chick Tracts are evil.
Anyway, I was searching for that one just now, and I discovered it has been removed from the Chick site. He must have caught on...

[Kiri]

Originally posted by DrChinese


You forgot... it's gotta be sincere.

Not sure how LONG it has to be sincere, though. Is 5 minutes good enough?

Hey! I can fake sincerity for 5 minutes; I'M IN!!

[Kiri]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon


A valid point. I suppose your view is that it doesn't matter which sky daddy you talk to?

D'accord!

[Kashyapa]

This Chick guy (heh) kills me. Reading his "tract" on evolution left me undecided as whether to laugh or cry. There are so many valid and utterly unshakeable arguments against creationism- statistical, observational, genetic- that anybody looking at it objectively would laugh out loud. The arguments advanced by the professor were adequate, but in no way represented the best ways to refute creationism, and the responses by the student didn't really provide the crushing defeats Chick imagined them to. What a sad, deluded collection of comics...if only Chick had dropped the "Witnessing" and taken up with Marvel Comics, we'd all be able to enjoy his undeniable artistic skills in a more intellectually valuable medium. :D

[Vorticity]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
This Chick guy (heh) kills me. Reading his "tract" on evolution left me undecided as whether to laugh or cry. There are so many valid and utterly unshakeable arguments against creationism- statistical, observational, genetic- that anybody looking at it objectively would laugh out loud. The arguments advanced by the professor were adequate, but in no way represented the best ways to refute creationism, and the responses by the student didn't really provide the crushing defeats Chick imagined them to. What a sad, deluded collection of comics...if only Chick had dropped the "Witnessing" and taken up with Marvel Comics, we'd all be able to enjoy his undeniable artistic skills in a more intellectually valuable medium. :D
Welcome to the forum, Kashyapa!

"Big Daddy?" is probably the most famous and infamous Chick tract on the internet.
The problem is that almost all of the arguments advanced by the Professor actually are either wrong, or (more likely) a gross misinterpretation of the evolutionist position. Its one great big fat strawman. See this link: http://www.godhatesfundies.com/articles/chick_bd_part1.shtml for a decent analysis.

Here's another good one: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bigdaddy.html

[Kashyapa]

Hmm, yes, on a second tortured reading, you're right. Nothing was actually scientifically sound. I doubt Chick has even bothered to check on his opposition's methods and real ideas. I find him and his work to be reprehensible. Goebbels would have been proud.

Ok...calming down. Thanks for the welcome.

[Vorticity]

Originally posted by Kashyapa
Hmm, yes, on a second tortured reading, you're right. Nothing was actually scientifically sound. I doubt Chick has even bothered to check on his opposition's methods and real ideas.
...and the weird thing is, people all over the internet (and elsewhere) are using this particular Chick Tract as a reliable source for the evolutionist position! For example, Chick claims in "Big Daddy?" that something called "New Guinea Man" is taken as part of the 'chain of human evolution' by evolutionists. It isn't. Anywhere. Ever.
But do a google on "New Guinea Man" and you'll find lots of Anti-Evolution sites that cite "New Guinea Man" as an evolutionist argument! Then, naturally, they have no trouble shooting it down. The original source (in this context) of "New Guinea Man" seems to be Jack Chick.
Sigh... One step forward, two steps back...

[Kashyapa]

I minored in anthropology, and I certainly never heard of any New Guinea Man. Methinks Chick took a little creative license. My field is in the biological sciences, which should make it obvious that I have seen a good deal of evidence that bolsters evolution.

Argh. More like ten steps back.

[Mercutio]

I remember reading at landoverbaptist.org an explanation worthy of Chick. To paraphrase...Hitler, if he accepted Jesus as his savior in the last moments in the bunker, would be greeted with open arms in heaven, but none of the Jews he gassed and cremated would be let in, since their lives were ended before they could see the error of their ways.

Maybe landover got it from Chick, I'm not familiar with his body of work.

[Kashyapa]

This is why I sort of dig the idea of karma. Not so much the woo-woo mystical rebirth stuff, but the idea that what you put into the world determines what you get out of it. You create your own hell or heaven, right here in this lifetime; you are your own Jesus and your own Satan. If you pump negative actions and thoughts into the world, then the world turns to hell around you, and vice versa. This of course doesn't account for sheer blind happenstance, or other people screwing with your life, but it's a useful idea. Call it vibes, karma, whatever, I think it holds true.

And you can't escape it by throwing yourself into the arms of a delusion. Religious types, try confronting the world as it is instead of running from it and hiding your head in the sand!

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I remember reading at landoverbaptist.org an explanation worthy of Chick. To paraphrase...Hitler, if he accepted Jesus as his savior in the last moments in the bunker, would be greeted with open arms in heaven, but none of the Jews he gassed and cremated would be let in, since their lives were ended before they could see the error of their ways.

Maybe landover got it from Chick, I'm not familiar with his body of work.

In case you weren't aware, landover is a parody site, and the scope of their parody is christianity in general. The fact that Chick shows poorly in light of their parody is just a reflection of his twisted values.

[Dancing David]

Wonderful Thread!

As a former gospel christian, who has since found kinder paths, I have to say that I have always had a hard time with the death bed conversion absolving someone of past sins.
I believe that it is Jaysuhsus who said 'by thier acts you will know them' or something like that, 'maybe 'the apple falls close to the tree'. Anywho, Peter denounced Christ three times so he isn't much of a source.
If there is devine retribution, then I can't think that it would be taken in by such a weak argument as ' I accepted Jesus as my lord and saviour' , it seems to me that the divine Justice would most like say : "Well then, thats just great , he can comfort you while you burn in hell."

Hooray for New Guinea Man! Lets buy him a New Guinea Beer. This is rather tyupical of the fumblementalist polemic. One person writes something in a tract and then a bunch of other people quote it ad nauseum. then some joker opints out how imporatant the original tract was because it has been cite-ed in all these other great tracts. Even worse is the amount of selfrefferencing that fumblementalists engage in. I quote my own work so it must be true.

Personaly I tend to follow the thinking of the buddha, our actions are our karma and our sole legacy.
I once offended a person by stating as an athiest that there was a heavier burden to be good because there was no afterlife, so if we blew it in life that was all there was, we blew it.

Peace
dancing David

[jimmygun]

I am an atheist with an imagination. Sometimes I like to fantasize about the day of judgement. I see it as a big court room where you are called to the bench to state your case and be judged.

I have no fear of judgement and consign myself to the depths of hell but I hope that the day I am in the room is the day that god judges people like Chick, Falwell, Robertson, Swaggart, and the rest of their ilk. It would be so entertaining. Can you picture it?

Jimmygun

[c4ts]

All right, I'm taking one more stab at the "Chick = Thrasymachus" idea, in the Gunslinger. Chick is saying the same things, but only because Chick's God isn't truly just, he is an upholder of an unjust status quo, which is "everybody goes to Hell but Christians." It's close to what Thrasymachus says in Plato's Republic- "the just is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger." It's the idea that justice is really no more than someone else's good, who is actually unjust.

Thrasymachus assumes that justice for an individual means following and upholding the law. He says that law itself really exists for the benefeit of the strong, which makes them selfish and unjust. So, the unjust man is stronger than the just man, because the just man is powerless to preven the unjust man from telling him what to do, if he is to stay just.

The sheriff, since he did not make the laws, is the example of a just man. The unjust man is Bart Dawson. When he breaks the law in Dodge City or wherever the hell the tract is taking place, the sheriff has no choice but to pursue action according to law.

The character of God is played by the injust ruler who makes the laws. He offers the unjust man what is practically Gyges's ring of invisibility- something Jack Chick calls "forgiveness."

"Foregiveness" is reported by Jack to be the invention of Jesus Christ, which renders its owner invisible to the mightiest (therefore the least just) of omniscient beings, otherwise known as God. God is a ruler whose status quo is "everybody goes to hell unless they make themselves my slaves," Christians being the slaves of God.

In Thrasymachus's argument, the unjust man always gets the better of the just, because the just man is robbed by political selfishness, and the unjust man is behind it all, in a position in which he can never be caught. Here, God is the ruler demanding submission or eternal punishment. The sheriff who has lived a just life is punished eternally by an unjust God because he did not spend his life as God's slave, and the unjust man reaps the rewards of the just life because after he accepted his status as a slave, he chose to die at the hands of the just man. The message is clear: be unjust and ally yourself with the strong only when it serves to benefit you, for if you are just you will suffer the injustices of the wicked, and if you are unjust you will always have the advantage over the just. God wants slaves, and Jack Chick will how to sucker him instead.

[Mercutio]

"In case you weren't aware, landover is a parody site, and the scope of their parody is christianity in general. The fact that Chick shows poorly in light of their parody is just a reflection of his twisted values."

Sorry, I thought everybody here would know landover, or I'd have labeled it more accurately. BTW, my favorite parts of their site are the various lawsuits filed by celebrities or televangelists who claim they are being wronged. The legal briefs describe the affronted parties so accurately that there is no doubt whatsoever about who it was, what they did, why they complained...(just search through the archives)

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Mercutio
"In case you weren't aware, landover is a parody site, and the scope of their parody is christianity in general. The fact that Chick shows poorly in light of their parody is just a reflection of his twisted values."

Sorry, I thought everybody here would know landover, or I'd have labeled it more accurately. BTW, my favorite parts of their site are the various lawsuits filed by celebrities or televangelists who claim they are being wronged. The legal briefs describe the affronted parties so accurately that there is no doubt whatsoever about who it was, what they did, why they complained...(just search through the archives)

When I first saw Landover Baptist, I thought it was a real site, too. But by the time I found a movie review of The Two Towers that described it as the adventures of hairy little homosexual perverts, I realized it was just too funny to be true.