If you think Chick tracts sound sane, you're not
Aron-Ra
Anyone who can find even one of these tracts that sounds remotely
accurate, legitimate, or anything other than stark raving mad needs
serious help. And yet there must be people stupid enough to accept
these somehow.
If you are one of these, then play devil's advocate and try to defend
this lunacy to me.
Aron-Ra
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Tim B
Sin Busters.
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0278/0278_01.asp
Please explain the problems you have with this.
Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:91bi0b$ikc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
John Hattan
>k. I'll pick one at random.
>
>Sin Busters.
>
>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0278/0278_01.asp
>
>Please explain the problems you have with this.
Well, to start. . .
Frames one and two describe a ludicrous distopia which is obviously
meant to show the "slippery slope" we've entered by eliminating prayer
in schools.
Frame seven hypocritically bashes every other religion (including
Catholicism, Chick's trademark) right after making a plea for religious
freedom in the first frames. Chick's tolerance of religion apparently
only extends to his own.
Frame eight forbids graven images. Ironically, engraved plates are used
to make his comics.
Frame eleven describes a commandment that even Chick himself would not
follow, even though it's the only one where he makes it clear that
execution is the punishment.
Frame thirteen adds "(murder)" to the commandment, thus allowing capital
punishment, a sacrament among Chick and his ilk.
The obligatory choice of Chick-endings:
-- Character dying while shouting "YAAAAA" and being thrown into the
lake-o-fire.
-- Character making a tearful conversion.
And, of course, there's the boilerplate last page where people can make
a tearful conversion of their own, and, most importantly, purchase more
Chick comics of their own!
Now then, let's cover one of the more fun ones, you Jive Turkey. . .
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0069/0069_01.asp
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.freespeech.org/shatner
pan
Back in the late 1970's, James Chick was a big supporter of a young
evangelist named John Todd<sic> (or maybe it was Todd Jon?).
He even published religious tracks celebrating the exploits of Todd,
e.g. as a soldier in Viet Nam, etc.
If I remember correctly Todd did have a military record, which stated
that he was discharged from the service because he was considered
psychologically unstable.
And there had apparently been ongoing rumors that Todd had a habit of
'seducing' young teen-age girls. Todd blamed these rumors (and
his derogatory military record) on a vast evil conspiracy, i.e. the
Illuminati.
Todd was a well accepted, rising star, to much of the evangelical
community, until he made a fatal error:
An influential evangelical minister asked Todd to send him some tapes
of his lectures. Todd obliged. Unfortunately, for Todd, he had
used these tapes previously to record a group sexual 'ceremony'
between him and a group of teenagers... so when the lectures (on
the tapes) finished, the sexual stuff started.
Todd was 'busted'.
I read about this is 'Christianity Today', around 1980.
One thing that this article stressed was that James Chick was still a
big supporter of Todd (after the bulk of the evangelical community
had abandoned Todd). Chick just couldn't seem to believe that
his impression of Todd (based on 'spiritual' insight) could be wrong.
pan
Medieval Knievel
"John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:4vli3to0hbj2n8rbo...@4ax.com...
> "Tim B" <Bi...@LineOne.Net> wrote:
Why am I not surprised that Timmy jumped right on in?
Kids throw these things on the floors of the hall in the high school I teach
in. I pick them up and throw them in the trash, since any paper left on the
floor is considered trash.
Just helping out the custodians, you understand.
--
********************
Medieval Knievel
aa# 1552
ICQ # 26667824
***********************
Mark VandeWettering
>k. I'll pick one at random.
>
>Sin Busters.
>
>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0278/0278_01.asp
>
>Please explain the problems you have with this.
Okay, I'll bite:
a) Can anyone produce an example of the police beating
someone for violating the separation of church and state policies
that our nation established?
b) I like the touch where drug dealers are portrayed as being ignored
by law enforcement.
c) People who post the 10 commandments in public school are in violation
of the law. We as a nation hold the principle of separation of church
and state to be an important guard to individual freedom. The Supreme
Court has consistently upheld that interpretation.
d) The portrayal of God as kind and merciful is rather strange, considering
he drowned an army, and let the Israelites run around the desert for
forty years. It is also rather odd that he chose only to extend the
courtesy of his presence to the descendents of Abraham, are we
to assume that all other are evil? (Chick claimes as much,
"As slaves, the Israelites learned the evil ways of the Egyptians".)
e) The First Commandment may be necessary to being a good Christian, but
it isn't necessary to being a moral person. Nor is it universal
dogma of all sects of Christianity that one must be Christian to
achieve salvation.
f) He doesn't say anything interesting about the second commandment,
although the portrayal of God as jealous seems rather childish.
g) Chick's interpretation of the Third Commandment seems a childish
interpretation as well. "Taking the name of God in vain" is not
what we would generally call swearing.
h) Regarding the 4th commandment, are we to put to death those who
don't keep the Sabbath? Curious call for a crusade....
i) The Fifth Commandment is just bizarre. What lesson are we supposed
to learn from this? That if we dont like our parents we will die?
j) The Sixth Commandment: Okay, we shouldn't kill.
k) Ah, the 7th. Apparently if you cheat on your wife, God feels that
giving you syphilis and AIDS is a good way to get you back on the
right track.
l) Apparently 8-10 aren't that important, they don't get cute little
anecdotes.
m) Apparently only those who _really_ trust in God get what they want.
The rest can wind around the desert for eternity. Actually, that
is until we die, then we roast.
n) Standard stuff about how Jesus saved us by dying on the cross.
Not to denigrate the vast majority of Christians who are good people,
I just don't get it. Remind me again: why did he need to die to
save us? Couldn't God just have forgiven us anyway?
o) "Because the evil world system that now controls the schools hates
Christ and his message". Enuf said. I agree with the response.
It is scary that anyone thinks this.
It's childish. This is the kind of stuff you'd tell a first grader,
and a first grader that you didn't respect very much either. The
really ironic thing is that it isn't obeying all these commandments
that nets you salvation/redemption, it is the recognition of Christ
as your lord that does the trick. Bleh.
Mark
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
Adam Noel Harris
:k. I'll pick one at random.
:
:Sin Busters.
:
:http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0278/0278_01.asp
:
:Please explain the problems you have with this.
[...]
Did the 7th frame strike anyone else as Anti-Semitic humor?
I missed the Commandment about "Thou Shalt Not Complain," which is the sin
the Jews in the Desert were supposed to have committed.
What is the mental problem of the boy in the story who hears all this for
the first time and immediately accepts it as true? What's the rationale
there, will he believe the next silly thing someone tells him, and if not,
why didn't he stick with the last silly thing someone told him?
-Adam
--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E
Don Kresch
<ilc...@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
>Go to Chick.com and review the titles available.
>
>Anyone who can find even one of these tracts that sounds remotely
>accurate, legitimate, or anything other than stark raving mad needs
>serious help. And yet there must be people stupid enough to accept
>these somehow.
I have always contended that Chick tracts are written by people
with deep psychoses and paranoia.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, EAC Decryption squad
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man
Peter Ammon
>
> Go to Chick.com and review the titles available.
>
I found this line on the home page:
"The rate of population growth has been steady for the time that we have
records. The present six billion is the right number of people to have
multiplied from the eight survivors of the universal flood about 4400
years ago."
Now, the present doubling time for the human population is about 45
years. If this were indeed constant, and 4400 years ago there were 8
people, then the current population should be 8 * 2^(4400/45) = 2.5 *
10^27...quite a bit larger 6 billion.
Is it really possible that they made such an egregious mathematical error?
-Peter
WickedDyno
It's not only possible, it's to be expected.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
winge...@my-deja.com
ad...@stanford.edu.XX (Adam Noel Harris) wrote:
> Tim B <Bi...@LineOne.Net> wrote:
> :k. I'll pick one at random.
> :
> :Sin Busters.
> :
> :http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0278/0278_01.asp
> :
> :Please explain the problems you have with this.
>
> [...]
>
> Did the 7th frame strike anyone else as Anti-Semitic humor?
>
> I missed the Commandment about "Thou Shalt Not Complain," which is the
sin
> the Jews in the Desert were supposed to have committed.
>
> What is the mental problem of the boy in the story who hears all this
for
> the first time and immediately accepts it as true? What's the
rationale
> there, will he believe the next silly thing someone tells him, and if
not,
> why didn't he stick with the last silly thing someone told him?
I think that, a lot of the time, the easy conversions in Chick's tracts
are the result of electronic monks with blown motherboards. If you've
read Douglass Adams's DIRK GENTLY'S HOLISTIC DETECTIVE AGENCY, an
electronic monk with a blown motherboard will believe anything... for
about five minutes at a time or until it hears the next thing to
believe.
>
> -Adam
> --
> Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
> PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E
>
>
--
"Long ago, learned I, that, if people to think me wise, I want, forced
to think before understanding my words, must they be. Why I talk like
this, that is."
Secret Confessions of Yoda.
Wingedbeast, C. Adam Scott, Atheist #1438
http://www.angelfire.com/pe/wingedbeast/index.html
kirs...@my-deja.com
ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering) wrote:
> On 14 Dec 2000 18:14:15 -0500, Tim B <Bi...@LineOne.Net> wrote:
> >k. I'll pick one at random.
> >
> >Sin Busters.
> >
> >http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0278/0278_01.asp
> >
> >Please explain the problems you have with this.
>
> Okay, I'll bite:
>
> a) Can anyone produce an example of the police beating
> someone for violating the separation of church and state policies
> that our nation established?
Oh, yeah, it happens all the time - I once said "god" in school and
had to go to the principal's office and wait for the police to come
out to beat me up. I got out of it when I explained that i was just
taking his name in vain, and really meant god-dammit.
> b) I like the touch where drug dealers are portrayed as being ignored
> by law enforcement.
Yep - and the bystanders yelling at the @*!% bigot (since chick is
frequently called a bigot, and he believes in god, therefore the word
must just be something that us evil satanic atheists use to mean
someone who believes in god)
> c) People who post the 10 commandments in public school are in
violation
> of the law. We as a nation hold the principle of separation of
church
> and state to be an important guard to individual freedom. The
Supreme
> Court has consistently upheld that interpretation.
Yep. And they've repeatedly stated that the appropriate punishment
is to be hauled out and beaten up by the cops. If you don't believe
me, then prove they never said that!
You also forgot to mention the idea that chick has that it's now
against the law to even "talk about the bible or god in school anymore"
as the one kid hushes up the other until they can get safely out of
the school before anyone overhears their forbidden conversation
> d) The portrayal of God as kind and merciful is rather strange,
considering
> he drowned an army, and let the Israelites run around the desert
for
> forty years.
Where is he portrayed as kind and merciful? The first mention of him
in this tract is when it says he destroyed egypt...
My favorite line "Poor moses, stuck with 3 million complaining Jews
for 40 years. They almost drove him nuts." Moses, apparently, isn't
a Jew himself (you can tell cuz he's drawn like jesus, while the rest
of those complaining jews are drawn like the nazi pig-people) after
all, Jews are evil. We killed jesus. he called upon his father to
forgive us, not jack chick.
> It is also rather odd that he chose only to extend the
> courtesy of his presence to the descendents of Abraham, are we
> to assume that all other are evil? (Chick claimes as much,
> "As slaves, the Israelites learned the evil ways of the
Egyptians".)
Yep. For the first 3000 years of the universe, all goyim went to hell.
> f) He doesn't say anything interesting about the second commandment,
> although the portrayal of God as jealous seems rather childish.
Interesting that he does quote the whole thing, though. Usually,
fundies leave out most of it - if they didn't, their followers might
notice that it not only forbids idols, it forbids *any* depiction of
*anything* in heaven or earth. Which makes comic books against this
commandment. At least, if they have any depiction of angels, demons,
devils, animals, or fish, or people!
> g) Chick's interpretation of the Third Commandment seems a childish
> interpretation as well. "Taking the name of God in vain" is not
> what we would generally call swearing.
What the fuck do you know, goddammit! jesus!
> h) Regarding the 4th commandment, are we to put to death those who
> don't keep the Sabbath? Curious call for a crusade....
Yep. And remember, that's sunset Friday until sunset Saturday. Better
take a truckload of stones to the office for next time you see one
of your co-workers still there after dark! Most people accept it as
local sunset, but some insist the sabbath starts when the sun sets
over jerusalem, so take a couple days off just to be sure...
> i) The Fifth Commandment is just bizarre. What lesson are we supposed
> to learn from this? That if we dont like our parents we will die?
Yep - long days upon the land guaranteed if you honor them - s.o.l if
ya don't!
> j) The Sixth Commandment: Okay, we shouldn't kill.
no this one's changed - it's ok to kill now, it's not ok to "murder".
god realized that if he just outlawed killing altogether, it would
let out war and capital punishment - you don't want to be a bunch of
sissies like those followers of ghandi, do you? so killings ok, just
not murder. god passes the errata for the bible through jack chick.
> k) Ah, the 7th. Apparently if you cheat on your wife, God feels that
> giving you syphilis and AIDS is a good way to get you back on the
> right track.
not just him - god also gave it to his pregnant wife
> l) Apparently 8-10 aren't that important, they don't get cute little
> anecdotes.
ran out of room - bad planning? he didn't learn the message from the
story about moses hitting the rock instead of speaking to it -
attention to detail can be very important!
> It's childish. This is the kind of stuff you'd tell a first grader,
> and a first grader that you didn't respect very much either. The
> really ironic thing is that it isn't obeying all these commandments
> that nets you salvation/redemption, it is the recognition of Christ
> as your lord that does the trick. Bleh.
but it's the ten commandments that they're trying to get into schools,
so that's why this tract. actually, i think it would be kind of funny
to let them put the ten commandments up, but only if they put up the
*unedited* version. they want to chop it up to make it look all nice
and sweet, they should be allowed to post them only if they leave in
all the stuff about being stoned to death for coveting your neighbors
ass ("but your honor, she's got a really nice ass!") and killed for
working on the sabbath - and, of course, it should go without saying
that they would need to post buddhist, hindu, confucian, thelemic,
wiccan, muslim, etc. documents next to them! (I'd just love to see
some of ghandi's statements about universal love and peace next to
this kill-everyone-but-us thing if they don't edit it!)
--
Kirstin Nicklaus (kirs...@my-deja.com) EAC, BWWLDAB chapter
Two lines that are never true but nonetheless guarantee support
for your cause: "That would force us to raise prices." and "We're
doing this to protect the children."
kirs...@my-deja.com
no - the census bureau (controlled by satanic christ-hating liberals)
lies about the doubling time - it's actually...um...let's see...carry
the one...um...well, whatever it is, it's actually the *exact* number
needed to make 6 billion from 8 in 4400 years.
--
Kirstin Nicklaus (kirs...@my-deja.com) EAC, BWWLDAB chapter
Two lines that are never true but nonetheless guarantee support
for your cause: "That would force us to raise prices." and "We're
doing this to protect the children."
Honus
>
> k. I'll pick one at random.
>
> Sin Busters.
>
> http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0278/0278_01.asp
>
> Please explain the problems you have with this.
Please...allow me.
It's not against the law to talk about God or the Bible in schools. At
least not in this country. If you want to live under a theocracy, move.
I just can't get over the fact that so many fundamentalists cry about
their speech being stifled (it's not) while on the other hand it's
exactly what they want to do to others. Not all of them, mind you...but
enough of them. There are places where I'd be punished for insulting
Allah. If we were held to the standard that Chick (perhaps) and so many
others want, we'd suffer similar punishment for breaking the third
commandment. Lunacy, I say.
Saying that it's "a true story" is merely an assertion on Chick's part.
He overstates the facts.
"Around 1500 B.C. God destroyed Egypt to free 3 million Hebrew slaves."
There's no extra biblical documentation for this assertion either. The
Egyptians seem not to have noticed all of the plagues, deaths, etc. that
were going on at this time. The Egyptians weren't shy about ejecting
various groups of peoples that they felt were becoming too powerful, or
presented other problems. They also weren't shy about documenting these
events. The Hebrew exodus, however, is unmentioned. I find that
peculiar, especially since the number of emigrants is given as a
whopping 3 million. There are some problems with that number and the
Exodus itself, but I'll skip over those for now.
Also, the Bible is notoriously silent on the whole issue of the evils of
slavery. Where it -isn't- silent, it condones it, even laying down laws
concerning the treatment of slaves; i.e. just how badly you can beat
one, for instance. And remember, they laws were given to Moses by God.
God could have easily said, "Don't keep slaves." I see hypocrisy,
favoritism, disregard for justice and freedom, etc. If Chick is trying
to put God in a favorable light, this isn't the way to do it. On the
other hand, I'm grateful that he's putting this stuff out in the open
along with the rest of us sinners. It looks so much worse coming out of
the mouths of the faithful, IMO.
Next, we have: "He used a man named Moses to lead them across the desert
to the promised land, called Canaan." So we see Moses invading (that is,
stealing) the land of several other nations, with God's blessing. I have
a problem with that. And before I forget, I have a problem with that 3
million figure. Deut. 7:1 tells us that the nations the Hebrews will
drive out are seven in number (odd coincidence, that seven) and that
they are all "larger and stronger than you". That puts the population of
Palestine at over 24 million. I'd like to see some support for that
number.
"[God] even drowned Pharaoh's army to protect them." The Bible also
tells us in Exodus 14:25 that the Egyptians had turned back, realizing
that God was against them; God (through Moses) drowned them all even
though they were no longer a threat. In other words, they weren't
drowned "to protect" the Hebrews. I won't even go into the fact that the
vast percentage of those killed were nothing more than grunts in
Pharaoh's army, following orders...for all I know they were pressed into
service (a la the British Navy). Killing innocents is wrong. No one
admires anyone who shoots another man in the back. It was unnecessary,
and spiteful. Not god-like.
"Poor Moses, stuck with 3 million complaining Jews for forty years."
This is an example of poor writing, which I don't have a problem with
coming from Chick. But he ought to make it clear -why- they wandered for
forty years. This just makes God look like a crappy navigator. Again, if
he's trying to impress us, this falls short.
Manna from heaven. "It was the perfect food!" Oh please. Prime rib is
much closer. Bread (if that's what manna was) doesn't even come close.
Have you read the description of manna? It does -not- sound appetizing.
I wonder why Chick left out the quail that came from the sea? Dead quail
covering the ground to a depth of three feet, for a days walk in any
direction? Please. On second thought, I don't wonder why he left it out.
And if you read the relevant passage, it really makes God look like a
homicidal maniac. First, he's angry because the people complain that all
they've had to eat for who knows how long is this manna stuff. To punish
them for getting tired of eating the same old same old and having the
audacity to complain about it (wishing they were back in Egypt -was-
admittedly ignorant) he tells them that they're going to get nothing but
quail to eat for an entire month. Yeah...that'll fix the problem. Why
not just rotate the menu a bit, God? And THEN, his anger burns so that
in addition to that punishment he strikes them with a "severe plague"
before anyone's even eaten a bite of bird. This is the same god that
said that he's never-changing, correct? The one that loves us all, is
forgiving, etc? Now I'm impressed. Not favorably, but impressed all the
same.
"As slaves, the Israelites learned the evil ways of the Egyptians." Like
keeping slaves themselves just as soon as they got the chance. And these
are God's chosen people?
"The top of the mountain was on fire and it quacked in God's presence."
Anyone that puts on that kind of a production when he makes his entrance
is kind of a loon. But then again, we're told that God created the whole
universe and all in it so that he could be worshipped, so I guess it's
to be expected.
Now, on to the Ten Commandments...or at the least the versions that
Chick selected.
"If you have broken any of these there is only one way to be forgiven."
Now this brings up all kinds of problems. Quite a few sects of
Christians don't believe that the 10 C's apply to them. They live under
grace, not under the law. Others insist that they do apply. Jesus worked
on the Sabbath, but he's God...or at least half God, so he's half off
the hook as far as breaking the fourth commandment. The disciples worked
too, though. Hmmm. It's kind of hard to keep a commandment that's as
unclear as this. Did God really mean for the commandments to be eternal
(as far as the Earth goes) and to apply to everyone? Let's see what it
says: "...whosoever doeth work therein (meaning on the sabbath) shall be
put to death." I get the feeling that the fourth commandment was never
meant to apply to me. I wonder if Chick has ever done any of his
doodling on Sunday? Or is Saturday the sabbath? No matter...what I
really want to know is should I put him to death myself, or should I ask
for help? Do I have to stone him? (There's an obvious joke for you. He
seems stoned enough already.) I don't -want- to kill him. If I don't put
him to death, am -I- then breaking the fourth commandment as well? Does
that mean that he can come around and kill me? Now I -do- want to kill
him. :( Look what your religion is doing to me. It's confusing me, and
making me feel the need to defend myself by shedding blood. But if I
shed blood to defend myself, am I then breaking commandment number six?
It says "Thou shall not kill". Chick inserted the word "murder" but not
everyone agrees with that. People have gone to prison rather than help
the government kill based on that commandment. Moses murdered an
Egyptian in Exodus 1:11-12 (and it -was- murder.) He even looked around
to be sure that no one saw him do it. Is he going to be in Hell too?
After all, Chick says that "God promised that ALL murderers will go to
Hell. (His emphasis.) But I'm getting ahead of myself.
"God says that we should not bow down to anything...except God Almighty
in Heaven." Again with the megalomania.
We're told that breaking the third commandment (taking God's name in
vain) used to warrant death by stoning. That was a punishment ordered by
God. Does Chick think that the punishment should still apply? I wonder.
God gave the rule, which Chick states we must still follow. It stands to
reason that the punishment demanded by God would stand as well. Of
course, personally I've never taken the Lord's name in vain. I meant it,
every single time. ;)
As for the dead 16 year old who hated his parents...I've heard it said
that if your teenager has never told you that he hates you, you're not
parenting right. ;) And of course, I have a problem with Chick's
portrayal here. Honoring your mother and father under the fifth
commandment does NOT guarantee a long life. Of course, if you dishonor
them Deuteronomy 21:18 tells us how they can have you stoned by the men
of your town. So keeping the fifth doesn't guarantee a long life, but
breaking it carries the promise of a short one.
The seventh commandment, regarding adultery. Chick tells us that "NO
adulterers shall inherit the kingdom of God." (Again, his emphasis.) I
guess that means that King David is screwed. Pity...we're told that he
was a man after God's own heart. Of course, we're also told that God
isn't a respector of persons. I guess he just has his favorites.
Favorite people, favorite kings. Funny how that works out. Convenient,
too.
The eighth commandment, Thou shalt not steal. Hmmm. Exodus 12:36 tells
us that God made the Egyptians "favorably disposed" towards the
Hebrews...and so the Hebrews "plundered the Egyptians". I've looked, but
I can't find a dictionary that has anything but "steal" (or the like) as
a definition of plunder. Personally, I think it was justified. But
"Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord" etc. I guess if he's helping you
plunder, whether it's promised land or money or whatever, it's okay.
There's all the justification the televangelists need. And naturally
that's but one instance.
Number nine, Thou shalt not bear false witness. Chick tells us that "No
liar shall enter heaven." I guess that means that he's going to Hell
too. Many of his tracts "bear false witness", including this one. And I
ought to mention that there are instances in the Bible where God caused
people to lie. "He put a lying spirit into the mouths of all his
prophets." 1 Kings 22:22-23 I guess if you're lying with God's help,
again it's okay.
And number ten, Thou shalt not covet. My beef with this one isn't with
Chick or his tract, it's with whoever came up with it. I'm sorry, but
that's just too hard! ;) I don't even hold the Hebrews accountable for
coveting their neighbor's land. (Sorry if I broke any irony meters with
that one.) After all, again...they had God on their side. That always
makes it right...no matter which god you kneel before.
"God knew we couldn't keep his commandments. They were only designed to
show us that we're sinners in need of a saviour." Oh boy, do I have
problems with this. I can't imagine making rules for my children that I
know they can't possibly keep, and then punishing them for breaking some
of them. That's the situation that Chick describes. He left out original
sin entirely. I understand why, of course...it's as asinine as all the
rest of this bilge.
That's some god...I'm surprised he doesn't make the stoning victims
gather up the rocks themselves. It would certainly be in character.
"That's why He died for us." Hmm. A god sacrificing Himself to Himself.
No, it just doesn't work for me. Especially when he's, you know...a god.
I'd wager that most people I know would do what it's said Jesus did if
they were assured of the same result. BFD. I'm not impressed. As a
matter of fact, I've got a problem with anyone who -wouldn't- do it, if
they in fact knew all the details straight from the mouth of God. God
giving up a piece of god is NOT the same as me giving up my son. Period.
There are no parallels, starting with the fact that I actually slept
with my son's mother and ending with the fact that I don't -know- that
he's going to be returned to me in all his heavenly glory. And what's
with all this "precious blood" stuff? Jesus' blood wasn't anymore
precious than anyone else's.
"Now I know I deserve Hell because I've broken God's laws." Nonsense.
Again with the heavenly father angle, what kind of father exacts eternal
punishment for limited offenses? Especially when the offense is not
accepting what you're told, as the frighteningly gullible kid in this
tract has? After all, if he hadn't made his prayer that instant but when
home to think about it but was killed en route, he'd be in Hell wouldn't
he? (Here comes the philosophy and sophistry.)
No, the problems with this tract are legion. Bad or at least
questionable theology, bald assertions, physical impossibilities,
megalomaniacal deities, carrot and stick (worship me or burn forever)
morality, out of proportion penalties, impossible standards and
unreasonable expectations, over simplification of complex issues, issues
that are -too- complex and contradictory implying human rather than
divine authorship...this whole thing is objectionable. The tract is
objectionable, the story that it's based on is objectionable, the people
that it's about are objectionable. In short, there are -lots- of
problems with it.
Is that enough, or do you want more?
--
We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever
believed in.
Some of us just go one god further.
Richard Dawkins
Cary Kittrell
<On 14 Dec 2000 18:14:15 -0500, Tim B <Bi...@LineOne.Net> wrote:
<
<
<Okay, I'll bite:
<
{...}
<
<b) I like the touch where drug dealers are portrayed as being ignored
< by law enforcement.
b.1) posting the Decalog would prevent drug abuse.
b.2) removal of the Decalog is sole and proven cause
of all that is Wrong With Our Children Today
(see also: "the Moral Decline of our Once Great Country")
{...}
<
<g) Chick's interpretation of the Third Commandment seems a childish
< interpretation as well. "Taking the name of God in vain" is not
< what we would generally call swearing.
{...}
<
Yeah, I stopped and wondered about that. For the first time in
my life, actually, because I've always just assumed that "taking in
vain" referrs to profanity -- although it's a tribute to god, if
a somewhat backhanded one, to call down His Power on the
jerkoff who just cut you off in traffic. But is cursing
actually what was originally meant by "taking in vain"? Or might it
be something like invoking god for a trivial purpose -- winning
the lottery, passing history, nailing Tammy Susie Faye Lynn?
Any biblical scholars here aware of commentary regarding
original intent?
Cary Kittrell
<Tim B <Bi...@LineOne.Net> wrote:
<:k. I'll pick one at random.
<:
<:Sin Busters.
<:
<:http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0278/0278_01.asp
<:
<:Please explain the problems you have with this.
<
<[...]
<
<
<the Jews in the Desert were supposed to have committed.
<
HA! Oh, dude, you just made my whole morning with that one. Hey,
there's a JAP joke in here somewhere, I can hear it ticking...
Cary Kittrell
<
{...}
<
<Now then, let's cover one of the more fun ones, you Jive Turkey. . .
<
<http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0069/0069_01.asp
<
Oh wow. Now *that* is incredible. Did Jack Chick ever meet
an actual preson of the Black persuasion in his entire life?
It's clear to me that the boy has watched "Shaft" *way* too
many times.
Adam Noel Harris
:In article <3A397A3E...@cornell.edu>,
: pa...@cornell.edu wrote:
:> Aron-Ra wrote:
:> >
:> > Go to Chick.com and review the titles available.
:> >
:>
:> I found this line on the home page:
:>
:> "The rate of population growth has been steady for the time that we
:have
:> records. The present six billion is the right number of people to have
:> multiplied from the eight survivors of the universal flood about 4400
:> years ago."
:>
:> Now, the present doubling time for the human population is about 45
:> years. If this were indeed constant, and 4400 years ago there were 8
:> people, then the current population should be 8 * 2^(4400/45) = 2.5 *
:> 10^27...quite a bit larger 6 billion.
:>
:> Is it really possible that they made such an egregious mathematical
:error?
:
:no - the census bureau (controlled by satanic christ-hating liberals)
:lies about the doubling time - it's actually...um...let's see...carry
:the one...um...well, whatever it is, it's actually the *exact* number
:needed to make 6 billion from 8 in 4400 years.
Actually, the doubling time has to be less than 50 years, according to
Chick's data. In "Sin Busters," we learn that there were 3,000,000 Jews
held captive in Egypt around 1500 BC (900 years after the flood). Even if
you ignore that there must also have been Egyptians at the time, you come
up with a doubling time of under 50 years.
Adam Noel Harris
"You religious?"
"No, I'm a Christian."
Incredible. Can you believe there's a Jack Chick Parody page? Are we
sure Chick isn't already parodying fundamentalism?
pz
> Cary Kittrell <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote:
> :In article <4vli3to0hbj2n8rbo...@4ax.com>
> :jo...@thecodezone.com writes:
> :<
> : {...}
> :<
> :<Now then, let's cover one of the more fun ones, you Jive Turkey. . .
> :<
> :<http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0069/0069_01.asp
> :<
> :
> :Oh wow. Now *that* is incredible. Did Jack Chick ever meet
> :an actual preson of the Black persuasion in his entire life?
> :It's clear to me that the boy has watched "Shaft" *way* too
> :many times.
>
> "You religious?"
> "No, I'm a Christian."
>
> Incredible. Can you believe there's a Jack Chick Parody page? Are we
> sure Chick isn't already parodying fundamentalism?
Is somebody else drawing for Chick nowadays? That thing didn't look like
the old, crude Chick...although the content is just as incoherent.
I thought the real parody of a certain style of religious thinking was
the general theme of this one. It's all about a guy who kills without
regret, gets shot while blowing up his enemies, and then, because he
says he believes in jesus as he is dying, he gets to go to heaven. Do
people still really think that way? That your whole life does not
matter, all that counts is your state of mind in the last few seconds
before you die?
--
pz
Henry Barwood
pz wrote:
> I thought the real parody of a certain style of religious thinking was
> the general theme of this one. It's all about a guy who kills without
> regret, gets shot while blowing up his enemies, and then, because he
> says he believes in jesus as he is dying, he gets to go to heaven. Do
> people still really think that way? That your whole life does not
> matter, all that counts is your state of mind in the last few seconds
> before you die?
Consider the Hymn "Amazing Grace". It is one of the most beautiful and
melodic hymns ever written. It tells the story of a man who was a
slaver. He caused uncountable misery and death among his cargo. Later in
life, he grew afraid he would be punished for his atrocities, so he
"found" religion and was "saved by grace". He went straight to heaven
because he was "saved". Sound familiar? Don't worry about what a
disgusting sleazebag you are in life, just accept JAAY - SUS and you
WILL be saved (Sorry, I couldn't resist adopting the patented style of
the televangelist). Hallelujah, Brother!
Barwood
Aron-Ra
"Tim B" <Bi...@LineOne.Net> wrote:
> k. I'll pick one at random.
>
> Sin Busters.
>
> http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0278/0278_01.asp
>
> Please explain the problems you have with this.
Are you serious?
I’ve never actually spoken to anyone brazen enough to try to defend
these things. Is that really what you’re trying to do?
I’ve waited for this debate my whole life!
Frame one:
The police would never bludgeon a teacher for teaching religion even in
a public classroom, no matter how objectionable the attempted
indoctrination was. The brutality on the part of our government as
represented by cops here depicted as savage thugs is not only blatantly
false, its intentionally inflammatory. A desperate passion plea to
generate outrage against atrocities that were never committed. It is
illegal to promote or favor a particular religion in a public school,
but it is considered a relatively minor offense. When this occurs in
reality, there may be a suspension, but many of those teachers continue
to teach in the same institutions with no more punishment than a
reprimand or at worst, a fine.
The idea that the police would ignore an obvious drug deal in favor of
a theological faux pas is insane and again is depicted only to generate
an unwarranted intolerance against the separation of church and state.
Chick tracts cannot ever be intellectual, so they cannot be reasonable
either.
The displaced and unrealistic reaction by the passerby makes no sense
at all even if you are insane. No where is there any indication of
bigotry on the part of the teacher being assaulted. Neither would any
real person in the illustrated age group react to such a horrible image
with blind hatred and irrelevant insults against the victim of this
savage beating.
Frame two:
There are many excusable ways to put the ten commandments on the
bulletin board. They could do it in political science just to
illustrate commonality of early cultures. They did do it in one of my
middle-school classes where we were studying Hammurabi and other early
lawgivers. No one was arrested because not even the non-Christians
rights were infringed upon as no one was attempting to teach religious
beliefs.
The boy in this panel is white, hence whether he is European, South
African, Australian, or Hispanic, he would not have come from any
culture unfamiliar with the ten commandments. As there is no
indication of his nationality, we may assume he is American, where he
would have been assaulted with religious indoctrination by at least
three quarters of the population his entire life. It would be
impossible for him not to be familiar with the ten commandments.
The guy talking to him hushes him as if they were in danger of arrest
themselves. Again this is blatant and emotional inflammation
insinuating there to be some sort of repression against religion in
this country. There certainly is not, but Chick tracts are never about
reality and have little to do with it.
The reference captioned here to read Exodus 20 ignores the fourth verse
which, (as others have already pointed out) Chick himself violates in
the production of these tracts and indeed with all of his artwork.
Verse six directly contradicts all of the negative implications against
the Jews illustrated in frames six through nine, so why did Chick even
make these accusations against them? Didn’t he read his own Biblical
references?
Personally, I agree with Kristinn and would rather like to see the ten
commandments complete and unedited posted in classrooms next to similar
admonishments from Islamic, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Hindi, Mormon, and
Bahai posted along side it. I think it would interesting to see
someone compare Modern Christian variance to the Hebrew Pentateuch as
well as comparing the death penalty by stoning to the Wiccan
decree; “Harming none, do as ye will”.
Frame three:
It is not illegal to talk about the Bible or God in any school in the
U.S. It is illegal for instructors to promote religion in a public
environment where students have the right to the freedom of religion,
but also freedom from it. Chick intentionally implies repression in a
manner similar to communist / fascist imagery so as to incite rage in
the emotional reactionaries who don’t know any better. These tracts
are ineffective against rational people, so they aim for the irrational
ones.
The pair are shown beneath an American flag [presumeably] to represent
that they should have religious freedom, but that they are denied that
in some anti-American fashion. What is important to remember here is
that the religious freedom Christians have always had in this country
was guaranteed by the sacrifices of the founding fathers, none of whom
were Christian in the least. Religious freedom means being free to
practice your own religion freely. It does not allow your cultish
dogma to be forced upon the children of other faiths particularly when
such indoctrination puts undue stress on family units and cultural
ties.
Frame four:
“It’s a true story”, he says, yet there isn’t the slightest shred of
evidence for any of it and a good deal to indicate that none of it ever
happened at all.
Frame five:
Egypt was never destroyed.
Around 1500 BC, Amenhotep had just become the first monotheist in
history, rejecting even Amen, the pagan god of Thebes for whom he was
named and claiming divinity for himself .
Amen was worshipped continuously for at least 1500 years prior to that
date, uninterrupted by any Biblical catastrophes including the global
flood. Archbishop James Ussher also calculated the global flood to
have happened in 1493 BC, seven years after the exodus as reported in
this tract. This was part of the same calculation that concluded the
Earth to be 6,000 years old. But Chick knows nothing of research. If
Moses ever existed at all, he would have more likely been a priest in
the court of Rameses II more than two centuries later when Amen was
once again revered above all other gods.
Frame six:
Why did God need to drown the Egyptians when he caused them to pursue
the Israelites in the first place? Exodus 14:8 In fact, they wouldn’t
even have chased the Jews into the Red sea if God hadn’t made them to
do it in Exodus 14:17. One might also wonder why God would not have
allowed the Pharaoh to release the Jews back in Chapter 10, verse 27?
Chick says that after the Egyptians were drowned, that the Jews were
rude and ungrateful. Exodus 14:31 says that after the Egyptians were
drowned, that Israel feared the lord and believed in the lord and also
in Moses. The first twenty verses of the next chapter distinctly and
vehemently refutes the allegations in this tract with the Jews singing
grateful praises unto God.
Why does this tract dispute the Bible so completely?
The only thing “rude” or “ungrateful” about the Jews up to this point
was the fact that they “borrowed” jewels and other goods from those
evil yet strangely generous Egyptians that they never intended to
return and did it on the night before they knew that all of those
generous Egyptians were about to lose many of their own children. Thus
God told them to steal from the doomed houses of Egypt as he knew full
well nobody was going to return anything.
Frame seven:
This frame depicts the Jews as rude, vile, selfish, and petty, but
completely ignores that at this point, they had already traveled
through the desert for three days without water. The human body cannot
physically survive another day in that condition and these people would
have had animals with them as well.
Moses would have had a helluva time tending to these Jews for forty
years while they wandered alone in the desert, especially since Moses
was well more than Eighty years-old before that trip even started and
people rarely lived half that long back then!
Somehow at eighty + years-old, Moses looked like a young Charleton
Heston, while the Jews looked strangely like Edward G. Robinson and the
rest of the cast of Cecil B. Demille’s epic movie, but it is important
that Jack remember that Moses was a Jew as well. You can’t believe in
the Bible any more than you can in Hollywood.
Frame eight:
Chick describes the manna from heaven as “the perfect food” yet it lay
on the ground and was only hours away from stench infested with
maggots. The Bible gives no indication that this was even good food,
much less perfect. Chick also insists that the Jews “hated” this food,
but as anyone should realize, any food that already stinks and has
maggots in it by morning can’t have been very good eight hours ago.
Chapter 17, verses 23 through 27 reveal that once the Jews realized
they could stave off putrification by cooking the manna, they liked it
a bit too much and continued to look for it even on the Sabbath. That
doesn’t sound much like they hated it. It sounds more like Jack Chick
wants very much to represent the Jews as negatively as he possibly can.
Frame nine:
Chick’s tract says that God intentionally kept the Jews in the desert
for forty years specifically because they didn’t like his manna. (no
pun intended) But there is more to it than that. Canaan is now called
Israel, but the Sanai is a desert close to it, but still within Egypt.
The Sinai also boasts the tallest mountain in all of Egypt and the only
possible contender for the Biblical Mount Sinai. This means that the
Jews never left Egypt in all that time. Somehow they crossed the Red
Sea in an afternoon, (presumably at the Khalij-as-Suways, a distance of
about 25 miles of mud and silt) but progressed no more than 100 miles
in the next 40 years of international flight from prosecution. I
imagine three million of anybody would be pretty damned cranky after
that.
It is also odd that a single modern woman could walk across every
inhabited continent all around the entire world in just five years
without even believing in a god, but even with God’s help these people
couldn’t cross a 100 mile distance in a single lifetime! They must
only have traveled about 40 feet per day. Either that or God is a
terrible navigator. It must be the latter since the Bible clearly
identifies Mount Sinai near, but not beyond the border of Canaan.
Frame ten:
However he can, Jack Chick evokes prejudice and hatred against the
Jews. This time he does it by implying that they learned their “evil”
idolatry from the Egyptians. The thing he didn’t realize is that the
sacred cows were theirs since their Assyrian and Babylonian origins.
What they learned from the Egyptians was the concept of a single god.
Moses’ priesthood in Egypt would have been in the name of Amen and he
was as familiar with the worship of that god as you are with his name.
The name means "the invisible one" for he became invisible so that his
subjects would never know if he was watching them. He was sometimes
illustrated with blue skin symbolizing his ethereal nature. Eventually,
it was assumed that he was always there. Later, he consumed the entire
pantheon when his believers began to say that all other gods were no
more than the chosen form of Amen. Once Amenhotep introduced the
concept of monotheism, Amen (AKA Amon and Amon-Ra) became a shoe-in for
the new supreme being in his absence. Tutankamen dissolved Amenhotep’s
religion and reestablished Amen at the forefront of the Egyptian
pantheon and now considered the only god worthy of worship. Nearly
every aspect of the mythos of Amen parallels the image of Ya-Weh. It
seems quite obvious then, that that’s where Moses got his ideas (if
they were in fact, his). If you add the mythology of Moses’
Mesopotamian roots to the contemporary worship of Amen, Viola! Ya-Weh,
a new deity unheard of before Moses and one who’s name would still not
be put to print in any text for another thousand years.
The symbol shown in the illustration is an Ankh, which is the symbol
for eternal life. Just one of the facets of worshipping the invisible
sun-god.
Frame eleven:
It wasn’t the creator of the universe that awaited Moses on Mount
Sinai. It was the creator of religion; a burning bush of Middle-
Eastern hashish.
Frame twelve:
The Bible says that a burning bush was atop the Sinai, but Chick has
somehow turned this into the worship of a volcano god by stating that
the whole mountaintop was on fire. That at least would make some sense
considering that the Jews journeyed toward a column of smoke by day
that revealed itself as a column of fire by night. What else could fit
those descriptions and continue burning for forty years? Mauna Lea in
Hawaii has been erupting continuously since 1980 and it certainly fits
the descriptions in Exodus. In fact, nearly all of the catastrophes of
Exodus could have been caused by an eruption of Mount Sinai.
Frame thirteen:
A stone carver goes up into a quarry for days by himself after decades
of having millions of followers starving after him for something to
believe in as much as to eat. That literate mason returns with
the “unquestionable” word of God carved in stone. Why am I not at all
surprised? Shouldn’t we expect him to say that God wrote those tablets
as well even if Moses’ chisel is looking a little worn?
To adequately refute each of the inaccuracies listed in these middle
panels would take too much typing for one week-end. To do it properly
would be a lifetime endeavor.
As for the ten commandments themselves? I’m fairly certain that I
adhere to most of them out of common sense in societal cohabitation
more than Chick does out of zealotous hatred and fear. So far as I’ve
seen, he has violated the 2nd one just by printing this one tract and
this tract also illustrates the Exodus, in which God commands the Jews
to violate the 5th, 6th, 8th, and 10th commandments all in this one
story.
Frame fourteen:
Here he lists among his “false gods”;
the Chinese philosopher Confucius, who is clearly not a god and not to
be worshipped.
Buddha, whom many Christians believe trained Jesus during
his “wandering” period.
The Baphomet, which is no more than a pentacle turned upside-down to
make it Satanic,
“millions” of Indian Gods even the Bhagavad Gita has the same claim to
inerrency as the Bible,
and Allah, which is just another name for the same god of Moses
depicted here,
Does this mean that God forbids the worship of God?
Gurus? Who worships Gurus? In short, it is probably best not to
worship anything or anyone except perhaps science as that is not listed
here.
Frame fifteen:
The second commandment which prohibits the making of images such as
those used to print this tract. This also applies to all holy symbols
including that plain little cross that Christians are so fond of
wearing.
Frame sixteen:
I wish there was some clarification as to what he meant when he said
that most of the world is involved in idolatry. How does he know
that?
A Muslim friend of mine once said that Christians are in violation of
the 3rd commandment because they do not worship God. They worship a
man as a false god. A man who many times in the Bible tried to tell
people that he was not God, but Christians seldom listen to anyone, not
even their own lord(s).
Frame seventeen:
Why bow down before any god, especially Ya-weh? Is an omnipotent ultra-
power going to be threatened by us if we stood up to him?
Frame eighteen:
OK. No cursing. But why limit it to the use of curses that include
God or Jesus? Should we be able to cuss as long as we stick to
improper nouns like “shit” or verbs like “fuck”? I think we would be
better off just to learn how to communicate more intelligently
overall.
Frame nineteen:
That “sin” is still taken so seriously in some Islamic nations that it
could still get you stoned right now today. For some reason, Chick
thinks that’s an atrocity, but then he thinks the Muslims worship a
different god too.
Frame twenty:
Remember the Sabbath. The Hebrew Sabbath. Won’t that just mess up you
week-end plans?
Whether its determined to be Sunday, Friday night and Saturday,
whenever it happens to be Friday night in Israel, or all week-end long
just to be safe, does the death penalty still apply to convenience
store clerks, emergency paramedics, television crews, and football
players?
Frame twenty-one:
Honor thy father and mother and don’t blame them if God visits upon you
his vengeance against their transgressions.
Frame twenty-two:
Thou shalt not kill….unless God tells you to. You’ll get plenty of
chances as that’s God’s favorite command. All through the Old
Testament he dealt out orders of death. He even ordered his own son
killed. In fact, he still does it sometimes for people like the Son of
Sam and other schizophrenic psychopaths.
Frame twenty-three:
OK, I’m adamantly against adultery myself. No religious reasons, just
a matter of basic consideration of my partner’s feelings along with
some potential health concerns of course.
Frame twenty-four:
If you want to know God’s position on theft, don’t see Exodus 20:15 as
Chick suggests. Read chapter 11 instead where God plots a confidence
scam to steal from all Egyptians kind enough to lend or supply jewelry
and other goods to these alleged slaves. The tenth commandment is also
violated in this same chapter with these same verses.
Frame twenty-five:
Where the Hell was it written “thou shalt not complain”? If Jack Chick
thinks that’s a sin, why doesn’t he just shut up instead of
continuously publishing his petty bitch sessions.
Frame twenty-six:
More cameos from Cecil B. Demille’ casing call. Only two adults
survived 40 years of wandering in blind circles with the lord as your
guide? Not at all surprising.
Frame twenty-seven:
Exodus 17:5 and 6 rather clearly indicates that Moses was instructed
to “smite” the rock with his staff. He was not told to talk to it, nor
was he forbidden entry into the promised land for that “one sin” as
Chick laments.
Frame twenty-eight:
The people died in the desert because they ate festering meat often
without water while they wandered the wasteland hopelessly lost for
longer than they would normally have lived if they had good food and
water.
Frame twenty-nine:
Moses gave the ten commandments, not God.
And Jesus did not keep all ten commandments either.
Frame thirty:
Jesus insisted many times that he was not God and was not to be
worshipped as God. He also claimed the father in Heaven to be the
father of all men, not just himself.
The Jews did not need a savior from sin. They needed a savior from
Rome. Jesus didn’t save the Jews from Rome until a century after he
died and the epistles were finally written.
No. That’s not right.
It wasn’t until four centuries later when the Catholic church was
conceived and began killing….
no wait, that’s not it either.
Jesus didn’t save the Jews from Rome until the inquisition was finally
banned in the latter half of the 20th Century.
He died because he was presented as a threat to Roman rule as well as
the authority of local magistrates.
Frame thirty-one:
God so loved the world that killed everybody that ever lived including
Adam for the entirety of human history for 4,000 assumed years, until
he finally sent his own son down and killed him too. Only this time,
Jesus knew it was only a temporary death, so it wasn’t really much of a
sacrifice. Not like any of that makes any sense anyway. How did our
inhumane slaughter of a local political activist earn our universal
immortality? If we are immortal why do we still die?
Frame thirty-two:
“Why has no one told me about Jesus” the kid says.
Was he raised by wolves until last month?
Hell doesn’t exist. None of this has to do with keeping the ten
commandments since it doesn’t matter what you do if you don’t worship
Jesus. And if you do worship Jesus, it still doesn’t matter what else
you do, right? That’s what it says in that quote from John 3:16 on
the preceding frame.
Jesus also insisted upon good works, impossible if you grow up hateful
and stupid.
Frame thirty-three:
The world system is not evil. Nor do they hate Jesus.
Frame thirty-four:
“Their dirty scheme” ….to perpetuate and ensure the freedom of religion?
Nobody deserves Hell. Not Manson, not Hitler, not Dracula, ….nobody.
Nobody deserves Heaven either for that matter.
Thirty-fifth and final frame for this evaluation:
Pretending to talk to someone as if they’re there is a form of self
hypnosis and that power of introverted suggestion does wonders for your
delirium. But fear not, for it doesn’t matter if you follow or break
any or all of the ten commandments as long as you ask Jesus to give
you ‘leventy jillion dollars and a mansion in the afterlife, its
yours! As long as you ask before you die. That’s it. That’s the only
catch.
And this tract was irrelevant, emotionally inflamed, self-
contradictory, ignorant, repugnant, and quite clearly insane.
Do you care to defend it? Or would you like to present another
example?
Aron-Ra
Aron-Ra
In article <3A39D839...@earthlink.net>,
Aron-Ra
ad...@stanford.edu.XX (Adam Noel Harris) wrote:
What do you mean 900 years before the flood?
James Ussher calculated the global to flood to have occured seven years
*after* this story takes place, with Noah's ark landing atop Mount
Ararat in 1492 BC.
Aron-Ra
Cary Kittrell
<
{...}
<
<I wonder why Chick left out the quail that came from the sea? Dead quail
<covering the ground to a depth of three feet, for a days walk in any
<direction? Please. On second thought, I don't wonder why he left it out.
Me either. Would you want to have to *draw* all that? You'd have
to be Sergio Aragones.
<
{...}
<
<"The top of the mountain was on fire and it quacked in God's presence."
<Anyone that puts on that kind of a production when he makes his entrance
<is kind of a loon.
Why? A quacking mountain, what's so loony about that? I can imagine
Chuck Jones doing it in a heartbeat.
Someone else mentions the style ("is this the original Chick?~).
As Scott McCloud makes so abundantly clear in his "Understanding
Comics", the more representational comic art is, the less
"involving" its effect becomes. Think Snoopy, then think
Prince Valiant. This stuff, the tracts, approaches the
photorealism end of the cartoony-representational scale,
and I find the effect threatening. Even if this were,
say, a comic on something like using your leafmulcher safely,
I think it would still give me a slightly sick feel.
Sorry to pick and choose among your excellent post for a few
items to mention from the comics afficiando's point of
view. In truth, this is one of the most well structured
and best written posts of its kind I've seen for quite
a while. It's a keeper.
Ken Cox
> Yeah, I stopped and wondered about that. For the first time in
> my life, actually, because I've always just assumed that "taking in
> vain" referrs to profanity -- although it's a tribute to god, if
> a somewhat backhanded one, to call down His Power on the
> jerkoff who just cut you off in traffic. But is cursing
> actually what was originally meant by "taking in vain"? Or might it
> be something like invoking god for a trivial purpose -- winning
> the lottery, passing history, nailing Tammy Susie Faye Lynn?
Well, according to one of the on-line Judaism FAQs, Jews treat the
commandment as prohibiting attaching the name of God to any false
or frivolous enterprise. Rabbi Joseph Telushkin in _Biblical Literacy_
says that the commandment literally says "don't carry the name of God
in falsehood".
I suspect, however, that the Scriptural interpretations of Jews are
not of great interest to Jack Chick.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Cary Kittrell
<Cary Kittrell wrote:
<> Yeah, I stopped and wondered about that. For the first time in
<> my life, actually, because I've always just assumed that "taking in
<> vain" referrs to profanity -- although it's a tribute to god, if
<> a somewhat backhanded one, to call down His Power on the
<> jerkoff who just cut you off in traffic. But is cursing
<> actually what was originally meant by "taking in vain"? Or might it
<> be something like invoking god for a trivial purpose -- winning
<> the lottery, passing history, nailing Tammy Susie Faye Lynn?
<
<Well, according to one of the on-line Judaism FAQs, Jews treat the
<commandment as prohibiting attaching the name of God to any false
<or frivolous enterprise. Rabbi Joseph Telushkin in _Biblical Literacy_
<says that the commandment literally says "don't carry the name of God
<in falsehood".
<
Thank you! Most interesting, that. So "godammit!" turns out to
be OK, but "godidit" -- created all species one sunny morning --
isn't. I actually like that viewpoint a lot more.
Mark VandeWettering
>Is somebody else drawing for Chick nowadays? That thing didn't look like
>the old, crude Chick...although the content is just as incoherent.
>
>I thought the real parody of a certain style of religious thinking was
>the general theme of this one. It's all about a guy who kills without
>regret, gets shot while blowing up his enemies, and then, because he
>says he believes in jesus as he is dying, he gets to go to heaven. Do
>people still really think that way? That your whole life does not
>matter, all that counts is your state of mind in the last few seconds
>before you die?
Yep. Kind of ironic that he goes on and on about the 10 commandments
in the other one, isn't it? Apparently none of that sin actually matters,
as long as you believe in Jesus, if only at the very end.
It is rather absurd.
Mark
>pz
Stephen Watson
pan <p...@psnwREMOVE.com> wrote:
>On 14 Dec 2000 17:35:56 -0500, Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Go to Chick.com and review the titles available.
>>
>>Anyone who can find even one of these tracts that sounds remotely
>>accurate, legitimate, or anything other than stark raving mad needs
>>serious help. And yet there must be people stupid enough to accept
>>these somehow.
>>
>>If you are one of these, then play devil's advocate and try to defend
>>this lunacy to me.
I predict you'll get no takers. Even within fundamentalism, Chick is
definitely "fringe", and widely considered an embarassment.
>Back in the late 1970's, James Chick was a big supporter of a young
>evangelist named John Todd<sic> (or maybe it was Todd Jon?).
[Todd's checkered history]
>Todd was 'busted'.
>
>I read about this is 'Christianity Today', around 1980.
>One thing that this article stressed was that James Chick was still a
>big supporter of Todd (after the bulk of the evangelical community
>had abandoned Todd). Chick just couldn't seem to believe that
>his impression of Todd (based on 'spiritual' insight) could be wrong.
Chick was/is also a booster of Alberto Rivera, a claimed former
Catholic priest who (allegedly) exposed all sorts of dirt on the RC
Church. At about that same time, CT mag was also debunking "Alberto".
But I see you can still get the "Alberto" comics on his web site.
--
*************************************************
* Steve Watson * Nortel Networks, Ottawa Canada *
* My opinions, not Nortel's *
*************************************************
WickedDyno
> "The top of the mountain was on fire and it quacked in God's presence."
> Anyone that puts on that kind of a production when he makes his entrance
> is kind of a loon.
Loons don't quack, silly!
leonardo dasso
Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:91bi0b$ikc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Go to Chick.com and review the titles available.
>
> Anyone who can find even one of these tracts that sounds remotely
> accurate, legitimate, or anything other than stark raving mad needs
> serious help. And yet there must be people stupid enough to accept
> these somehow.
>
> If you are one of these, then play devil's advocate and try to defend
> this lunacy to me.
>
>
>
Well, I had a quick look at a couple of them and they seem to be a rather
funny parody. Not brilliant but sort of funny. Are you suggesting they are
serious?
regards
leo
WickedDyno
ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering) wrote:
> On 15 Dec 2000 10:09:17 -0500, pz <p...@mac.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Is somebody else drawing for Chick nowadays? That thing didn't look like
> >the old, crude Chick...although the content is just as incoherent.
> >
> >I thought the real parody of a certain style of religious thinking was
> >the general theme of this one. It's all about a guy who kills without
> >regret, gets shot while blowing up his enemies, and then, because he
> >says he believes in jesus as he is dying, he gets to go to heaven. Do
> >people still really think that way? That your whole life does not
> >matter, all that counts is your state of mind in the last few seconds
> >before you die?
>
> Yep. Kind of ironic that he goes on and on about the 10 commandments
> in the other one, isn't it? Apparently none of that sin actually
> matters,
> as long as you believe in Jesus, if only at the very end.
>
> It is rather absurd.
"You jive turkey!"
Yes. Yes, it is.
Wayne Aiken
: In alt.atheism on 14 Dec 2000 17:35:56 -0500, Aron-Ra
: <ilc...@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
: >Go to Chick.com and review the titles available.
: >
: >Anyone who can find even one of these tracts that sounds remotely
: >accurate, legitimate, or anything other than stark raving mad needs
: >serious help. And yet there must be people stupid enough to accept
: >these somehow.
:
: I have always contended that Chick tracts are written by people
: with deep psychoses and paranoia.
Who is stupider?
The people who sit and make up these Chick tracts
OR
The people who pay good money for them and stand on streetcorners
handing them out, expecting people to be converted because of them?
Do they have *any* idea how hard people are laughing at them?
--
Holy Temple of Mass $ sl...@ncsu.edu atheist#304 $ "My used underwear
Consumption! $ http://www4.ncsu.edu/~aiken/ $ is legal tender in
PO Box 30904 $ Warning: I hoard pennies $ 28 countries!"
Raleigh, NC 27622 $ ICQ:9763940 Anti-Spam #77 $ --"Bob"
Cary Kittrell
<In article <t3il0ok...@corp.supernews.co.uk>,
< "Tim B" <Bi...@LineOne.Net> wrote:
<> k. I'll pick one at random.
<>
<> Sin Busters.
<>
<> http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0278/0278_01.asp
<>
<> Please explain the problems you have with this.
<
<Are you serious?
<I've never actually spoken to anyone brazen enough to try to defend
<these things. Is that really what you're trying to do?
<
<I've waited for this debate my whole life!
<
<Frame one:
<
Clap clap clap clap < bravo BRAVO!> clap clap clap...
Well done!!
Aron-Ra
ai...@unity.ncsu.edu (Wayne Aiken) wrote:
> Don Kresch (ROT13....@npebarg.arg.getridof.com) wrote:
> : In alt.atheism on 14 Dec 2000 17:35:56 -0500, Aron-Ra
> : <ilc...@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
> : >Go to Chick.com and review the titles available.
> : >
> : >Anyone who can find even one of these tracts that sounds remotely
> : >accurate, legitimate, or anything other than stark raving mad needs
> : >serious help. And yet there must be people stupid enough to accept
> : >these somehow.
> :
> : I have always contended that Chick tracts are written by people
> : with deep psychoses and paranoia.
>
> Who is stupider?
>
> The people who sit and make up these Chick tracts
>
> OR
>
> The people who pay good money for them and stand on streetcorners
> handing them out, expecting people to be converted because of them?
> Do they have *any* idea how hard people are laughing at them?
Yes, but they haven't the slightest clue why.
(sigh)
PZ Myers
<lda...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
Yes. Even if Jack Chick were a subtle genius, trying to sabotage
fundamentalism by reducing it to absurdity, those comics are
passed out with complete seriousness by a lot of people with the
intent of persuading others of the importance of christianity.
--
PZ Myers
lance_c...@my-deja.com
> >
> > k. I'll pick one at random.
> >
> > Sin Busters.
> >
> > http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0278/0278_01.asp
> >
> > Please explain the problems you have with this.
>
Commandments in general and the Chick Tract in particular.
So, like, do you believe in the 10 commandments or what then?
; )
--Lance C. Johnson
Martinez, CA
Mitchell Coffey
Henry Barwood <hbar...@indiana.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> Don't worry about what a disgusting sleazebag you are in life, just
Henry, does it have to be spelled out to you exactly why this sort of
philosophy appeals to Creationists?
Mitchell Coffey
crit
WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote in message
news:amg39.REMOVETHIS-
> > "The top of the mountain was on fire and it quacked in God's presence."
> > Anyone that puts on that kind of a production when he makes his entrance
> > is kind of a loon.
Helpu
I think that they desire to make an impact upon people. Most of us dont like
others to try to impact us esp. in religion but I think that chicks tracts
serve a purpose. I think we are just getting too sophisticated and have
forgotten that the message of the cross is foolishness to those that are
perishing but to us that are being saved it is the power of God. And God
calls the weak and foolish things of this world that He might display His
power without the need for help from mans wisdom or strength. So that noone
can take glory/credit for what He alone can do.
crit
Cary Kittrell <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:91dvrv$55e$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu...
> <> Please explain the problems you have with this.
> <Are you serious?
> <I've never actually spoken to anyone brazen enough to try to defend
> <these things. Is that really what you're trying to do?
> <I've waited for this debate my whole life!
> <Frame one:
> Clap clap clap clap < bravo BRAVO!> clap clap clap...
> Well done!!
Helpu
I myself dont use tracts but maybe thats because of my own pride and fear of
being seen by others as foolish
I too will try to defend them despite the attempts at social pressure
crit
PZ Myers <my...@mac.com> wrote in message news:myers-> Yes. Even if Jack
Chick were a subtle genius, trying to sabotage
> fundamentalism by reducing it to absurdity, those comics are
> passed out with complete seriousness by a lot of people with the
> intent of persuading others of the importance of christianity.
Helpu
Hey since when do we rely upon the sophisitication of human wisdom to
persuade others?
And if yo cant receive the message as a child then u arent ready for you
still trust in self and not God
Paul came preaching in the simple message of the cross in the power of the
Spirit that his message might not depend on the wisdom of man but the power
of God
crit
Wayne Aiken <ai...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote in message
news:91duab$ks7$1...@uni00nw.unity.ncsu.edu...
> : I have always contended that Chick tracts are written by people
> : with deep psychoses and paranoia.
> Who is stupider?
> The people who sit and make up these Chick tracts
> OR
> The people who pay good money for them and stand on streetcorners
> handing them out, expecting people to be converted because of them?
> Do they have *any* idea how hard people are laughing at them?
Helpu
many times people laugh as a defense mechanism but reguardless of the reason
they laugh why would that affect one that really cared?
wouldnt being laughed at just discourage those that are really out for
selfish motives and/or the desire for applause and approval by their peers?
the message of the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing
and the tracts dont save and the speaker doesnt save but God saves and God
uses the simplest of tools, many times the tools that are foolish and
ineffective in the eyes of man so that the power and ability to the HAND
that holds the tool be made manifest rather than the power and ability of a
particular tool be made manifest. ??
Al Klein
Harris) posted in alt.atheism:
>Actually, the doubling time has to be less than 50 years, according to
>Chick's data. In "Sin Busters," we learn that there were 3,000,000 Jews
>held captive in Egypt around 1500 BC (900 years after the flood). Even if
>you ignore that there must also have been Egyptians at the time, you come
>up with a doubling time of under 50 years.
Think about that for a moment.
Three million held captive by a few? There must have been at least 6
million Egyptians. (Not to mention all the non-Jewish, non-Egyptian
people in the world.)
So the doubling time is now a maximum of 17 years. Hardly possible
unless there were no early mortality, and everyone started being
parents at the age of 13. (Or every woman had multiple births.)
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
aklein at villagenet dot com
kirstinn
> Chick's data. In "Sin Busters," we learn that there were 3,000,000
Jews
> held captive in Egypt around 1500 BC (900 years after the flood).
Even if
> you ignore that there must also have been Egyptians at the time, you
come
> up with a doubling time of under 50 years.
Well, maybe that was the doubling time *then* but it isn't anymore.
and, i know that it was mentioned earlier in the thread that it has
remained the same but that doesn't mean it hasn't changed! with god
all things are possible - if you would give your mind to him (you can
deposit it at the nearest convenient church, and they'll deliver it)
you would understand this!
--
Kirstin Nicklaus (kirs...@my-deja.com) EAC, BWWLDAB chapter
Whenever a politician or a business has no justification for
their actions, they say it's either to avoid raising prices,
or they're doing it to protect the children.
John Hattan
>In article <3A39D839...@earthlink.net>,
> Honus <hon...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Tim B wrote:
>> >
>> > k. I'll pick one at random.
>> >
>> > Sin Busters.
>> >
>> > http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0278/0278_01.asp
>> >
>> > Please explain the problems you have with this.
>>
>Snip an incredibly long explanation of the problems with the 10
>Commandments in general and the Chick Tract in particular.
>
>
>
>So, like, do you believe in the 10 commandments or what then?
Are you asking if he believes if they exist or if they are a good guide
for life?
Not putting words in anyone's mouth, but I think that they are a
decidedly lousy guide. Lemme elaborate:
First off, there are two sets of 'em. There's one in Exodus 20, then
there's a "duplicate" in Exodus 34 that Moses supposedly had re-dictated
to him after smashing the first set. Problem is, the second set only has
three commandments in common with the first. If this is such an inerrent
guide, why did YHWH change his mind about seven of 'em between the first
time Moses ascended the mountain and the second?
Assuming you're referring to the set in Exodus 20 (and I'm not sure you
are, given that only the set in Exodus 34 is actually referred to as
"the ten commandments), let's look at 'em in turn:
1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
- YHWH nebulously says you should not have any gods "before" him, thus
making an allowance for polytheism as long as he gets to be a boss.
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is
in heaven above or on earth beneath or in the water under the earth.
- Nobody obeys this commandment. Head down to your local cemetary any
day of the week to see hundreds of violations of this one from good
churchgoers.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the
Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.
- Is a universe-spanning god so thin-skinned that he gets upset whenever
anyone shouts his kid's name when they stub their toe?
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor
and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your
God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter,
your male slave or your female slave or your cattle or your sojourner
who stays with you.
- Slavery is wrong, period. Putting limits on how they are to be treated
only gives sanction to a barbaric practice.
5. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in
the land which the Lord your God gives you.
- This one works for me, except for the fact that the penalty for
breaking this one, as is mentioned in Deuteronomy, is death by stoning.
6. You shall not kill.
- Works for me, but folks have to ignore it by and large to make
allowances for war, capital punishment, westward expansion, etc.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
- Fine with me.
8. You shall not steal.
- No problem. Wow, two in a row :)
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
- Why does the prohibition against lying only apply to the narrow case
of perjury? Why not "thou shalt not lie"?
10. You shall not covet you neighbor's house; you shall not covet your
neighbor's wife or his male slave or his ox or his donkey or anything
that belongs to your neighbor.
- Not only is the wife mentioned in the inventory of that which "belongs
to your neighbor", she's not even at the top of the list! Wives and
slaves are lumped together in the list of property along with house and
donkey. It's a ludicrous and barbaric relic of a barbaric society.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.freespeech.org/shatner
crit
John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
> 1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
> - YHWH nebulously says you should not have any gods "before" him, thus
making an allowance for polytheism as long as he gets to be a boss.
Helpu
all these commands are for the good of the people as a group and
individually
following false Gods not only leads one away from the true God who is the
source of all good things but following after a false god leads one into the
evil practices assocaited with that god such as infant sacrifice
> 2. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is
in heaven above or on earth beneath or in the water under the earth.
> - Nobody obeys this commandment. Head down to your local cemetary any
day of the week to see hundreds of violations of this one from good
> churchgoers.
Helpu
true and the command is given to to some degree hinder or make us aware of
this evil tendency in people to make idols
> 3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the
Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.
>
- Is a universe-spanning god so thin-skinned that he gets upset whenever
> anyone shouts his kid's name when they stub their toe?
Helpu
taking the LOrds name is vain reveals an irreverent prideful heart but the
soul that reverences the Lord obeys the LOrd and to obey the Lord is
oneagain to the beenefit of all for all the commands are summed up this way:
1; Love God 2. love others
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor
and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your
God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter,
your male slave or your female slave or your cattle or your sojourner
> who stays with you.
- Slavery is wrong, period. Putting limits on how they are to be treated
only gives sanction to a barbaric practice.
Helpu
abuse of slaves is wrong just as abuse of employess is wrong. You interpret
from your own cultural bias but it appears the slavery was a necessary evil
in that time and though God didnt abolish it He put boundaries on it to
protect slaves
5. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in
> the land which the Lord your God gives you.
>
- This one works for me, except for the fact that the penalty for
> breaking this one, as is mentioned in Deuteronomy, is death by stoning.
Helpu
Ill bet it was hard to find a rebellious son in those days and there was a
much more orderly youth. Remeber those were tough times and survvival was
difficult so it was hard enough fighting the elements and outside enemies
with families united, imagine the difficulty and even impossibility of
survival if their was internal strife and incooperativeness.
> 6. You shall not kill.
> - Works for me, but folks have to ignore it by and large to make
allowances for war, capital punishment, westward expansion, etc.
Helpu
the word used for kill means murder
7. You shall not commit adultery.
>
- Fine with me.
> 8. You shall not steal.
> - No problem. Wow, two in a row :)
> 9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
> - Why does the prohibition against lying only apply to the narrow case
of perjury? Why not "thou shalt not lie"?
Helpu
why do you restrict its meaning to court perjury? I like the wording(it
forbids false witness AGAINST ur neighbor) for it leaves room for lies that
would help ur neighbor namely lies told to an enemy seeking vengeance as to
the whereabouts of a friend(lie to those Nazis seeking to execute Jews)
>
10. You shall not covet you neighbor's house; you shall not covet your
> neighbor's wife or his male slave or his ox or his donkey or anything
that belongs to your neighbor.
>
- Not only is the wife mentioned in the inventory of that which "belongs
> to your neighbor", she's not even at the top of the list! Wives and
slaves are lumped together in the list of property along with house and
> donkey. It's a ludicrous and barbaric relic of a barbaric society
Helpu
the list may or may not deem greater value to be those things first on the
list it may just be a division between inanimate objects and living beings
of which the wife is first on the list of living beings with the house
including all inanimate possessions
sheesh John! you really seem to have a strong negative bias against the
things of God and it is so obvious that it kinda discredits your arguments
before they are even rebutted
I could be wrong but these are my perspectives..
Mark VandeWettering
>
>Cary Kittrell <ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
>news:91dvrv$55e$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu...
>> <> Please explain the problems you have with this.
>
>> <Are you serious?
>> <I've never actually spoken to anyone brazen enough to try to defend
>> <these things. Is that really what you're trying to do?
>
>> <I've waited for this debate my whole life!
>
>> <Frame one:
>
>> Clap clap clap clap < bravo BRAVO!> clap clap clap...
>
>
>> Well done!!
>
>
>Helpu
>I myself dont use tracts but maybe thats because of my own pride and fear of
>being seen by others as foolish
Perhaps that feeling of pride and foolishness is based upon the realization
the Chick tracts are actually foolish. Foolish and absurd. Absurd and
un-Christian.
>I too will try to defend them despite the attempts at social pressure
That's kind of funny. The tracts themselves are a very naive attempt
at "social pressure". Naive and foolish. Foolish and absurd. Absurd and..
oh, never mind.
By the way, you haven't defended them.
Mark
WickedDyno
<joe...@prodigy.net> wrote:
Chick's racist, anti-semitic, paranoid, lying, hate-filled tracts
portray just about the exact opposite of what I would expect a just and
benevolent God to be like. They serve no purpose except to cause the
kind of people who make spiritual decisions based on what little cartoon
people tell them to do (that is to say, the naive, the foolish, and the
unintelligent) to be more likely to make such a decision out of fear of
hellfire rather than a sincere belief in the message of Jesus (a
message, by the way, for which I hold great respect, although I do not
believe in the divinity of Jesus nor in the God of the Bible).
leonardo dasso
That's amazing. Not living in the US, I thought they were a satire. I guess
that with some fringe groups it's sometimes hard to tell.
leo
leonardo dasso
crit <joe...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:91e3us$kt4u$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com...
regards
leo
crit
WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote in message
news:amg39.REMOVETHIS-
> Chick's racist, anti-semitic, paranoid, lying, hate-filled tracts
> portray just about the exact opposite
Helpu
whoah thats alot of accusations uve got there, can we seem some evidence or
do we just have to assume a personal bias?
of what I would expect a just and
> benevolent God to be like. They serve no purpose except to cause the
kind of people who make spiritual decisions based on what little cartoon
people tell them to do (that is to say, the naive, the foolish, and the
> unintelligent) to be more likely to make such a decision out of fear of
hellfire rather than a sincere belief in the message of Jesus (a
> message, by the way, for which I hold great respect, although I do not
believe in the divinity of Jesus nor in the God of the Bible).
Helpu
Jesus spoke more about hell than anyone else in the bible.
Jesus claimed to be God and when they wished to stone him for claiming it he
didnt correct them for thinking that he cl;aimed to be God. Jesus said the
scriptures were true and testified of Him.
Now, to have respect for the message of Jesus which you also believe to be a
lie doesnt seem at all consistent. To believe that Jesus was a GOOD man but
also believe that He lied about being GOd seems even more inconsistent
crit
Mark VandeWettering <ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org> wrote in message
news:slrn93l822...@peewee.telescopemaking.org...
Helpu
> >I myself dont use tracts but maybe thats because of my own pride and fear
of
> >being seen by others as foolish
> Perhaps that feeling of pride and foolishness is based upon the
realization
the Chick tracts are actually foolish. Foolish and absurd. Absurd and
> un-Christian.
> >I too will try to defend them despite the attempts at social pressure
> That's kind of funny. The tracts themselves are a very naive attempt
> at "social pressure". Naive and foolish. Foolish and absurd. Absurd
and..
> oh, never mind.
Helpu
please give reference to your claims of absurdity and un-christianness
Dethstryk
<91e9b6$8e88$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>:
>> Chick's racist, anti-semitic, paranoid, lying, hate-filled tracts
>> portray just about the exact opposite
>
>Helpu
>whoah thats alot of accusations uve got there, can we seem some evidence
>or do we just have to assume a personal bias?
It looks like someone hasn't read very many Chick tracts.
--
Dethstryk
jema...@tcainternet.com
Dal Carey
christian belief.
Reading the comments made there seem to be very
few people on this group who are not atheists.
So what is so worrying about those tracts.
I had a look and liked the one about Evolution being
a religion not a science.
To me evolution is a getout and people who support
it are hoping there isn't a God.
I'm sure there is............sorry.
Dal
Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:91bi0b$ikc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Go to Chick.com and review the titles available.
>
> Anyone who can find even one of these tracts that sounds remotely
> accurate, legitimate, or anything other than stark raving mad needs
> serious help. And yet there must be people stupid enough to accept
> these somehow.
>
> If you are one of these, then play devil's advocate and try to defend
> this lunacy to me.
>
> Aron-Ra
>
>
>
mel turner
breathemail!dal...@uunet.uu.net wrote...
>
>This group seems to me to be full of people afraid of
>christian belief.
Which group? What makes you say that? Do you somehow equate
these Chick tracts with "christian belief"?
> Reading the comments made there seem to be very
>few people on this group who are not atheists.
If 'this group' is alt.atheism, that might be appropriate
if true.
> So what is so worrying about those tracts.
They are ridiculous and often offensive, but some silly people
seem to think they are persuasive? That's a bit scary...
> I had a look and liked the one about Evolution being
>a religion not a science.
Which one?
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5001/5001_01.asp
or
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
?
What made you like it? Did you really think they were honest
or accurate? If so, you've got a _lot_ to learn.
Seen
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bigdaddy.html>?
Try:
and its many fine FAQs.
> To me evolution is a getout and people who support
>it are hoping there isn't a God.
Sorry, but it seems you don't know what you're talking
about. Accepting the facts of evolution doesn't require
atheism, not does it necessarily even imply it. Many
"evolutionists" are theists.
Some relevant links and links to links:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/evolutio.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_denom.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9917/evolution/kevino.html
http://www.goshen.edu/bio/Biol410/Biol410SrSemPapers97/millerl.html
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/fulldoc.html#fact [par. down]
http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/index.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/index.html/
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~newman/sci-cp/evolution.html
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~newman/sci-faith.html
http://solon.cma.univie.ac.at/~neum/christ/creation.html
> I'm sure there is............sorry.
That's nice.
cheers
John Hattan
>This group seems to me to be full of people afraid of
>christian belief.
>
> Reading the comments made there seem to be very
>few people on this group who are not atheists.
>
> So what is so worrying about those tracts.
>
> I had a look and liked the one about Evolution being
>a religion not a science.
So, do you think that the universe is 6,000 years old like the comics
claim?
Mark VandeWettering
>Helpu
>please give reference to your claims of absurdity and un-christianness
"Never attempt to teach a pig to sing.
It wastes your time and annoys the pig."
- Robert A. Heinlein
If you can't see Chick tracts for the mindless, stupid, mean
spirited, anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, un-Christian, moronic bundle
of tripe they are, I can't imagine that any argument I make will
matter the least bit of difference to you. In short, I don't give
singing lessons, at least not for free.
Medieval Knievel
"Dal Carey" <breathemail!dal...@uunet.uu.net> wrote in message
> To me evolution is a getout
That's because you're an idiot. The theory of evolution was made up by
people afraid of xianity?
You're so full of shit it spews out of your ears.
--
********************
Medieval Knievel
aa# 1552
ICQ # 26667824
***********************
Don Kresch
(Wayne Aiken) let us all know that:
>Don Kresch (ROT13....@npebarg.arg.getridof.com) wrote:
>: In alt.atheism on 14 Dec 2000 17:35:56 -0500, Aron-Ra
>: <ilc...@hotmail.com> let us all know that:
>: >
>: >Anyone who can find even one of these tracts that sounds remotely
>: >accurate, legitimate, or anything other than stark raving mad needs
>: >serious help. And yet there must be people stupid enough to accept
>: >these somehow.
>: with deep psychoses and paranoia.
>
>Who is stupider?
>
> The people who sit and make up these Chick tracts
>
>OR
>
> The people who pay good money for them and stand on streetcorners
>handing them out, expecting people to be converted because of them?
>Do they have *any* idea how hard people are laughing at them?
Oooooo. That's a toughie. I suppose at this point is 6 of one,
half a dozen of the other.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, EAC Decryption squad
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man
WickedDyno
<joe...@prodigy.net> wrote:
Don't defend these. Chick is a racist, anti-semitic, lying,
hate-filled, paranoid, delusional man. His every word is God, God, God,
but his every deed is foul, foul, foul.
Racism:
<http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1710/1710_01.asp>
This tract is described as "especially for native american *readers*",
but presents a stereotypical portrayal of them, with virtually no
written words, as if he expects that Indians can't read anyway.
<http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0069/0069_01.asp>
"You Stupid Jive Turkey!" (Yes, I know it was written in the 70's --
but it's still a racist portrayal clearly concocted by a man whose
concept of Black culture comes from watching too much Blaxploitation
film.)
Paranoia:
<http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0030/0030_01.asp>
He actually believes he is living in the end times. That Pope JP II,
who has done more than any previous Pope to heal wounds between
christian denominations and has encouraged peace and democracy in the
many nations, is the antichrist. Note that he depicts the story of the
ark as if it were history rather than a fable.
<http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0094/0094_01.asp>
More insanity. I can't even begin to describe it. Just read it, and
imagine which is more likely -- a secular government declaring
christians heretics, or a christian government declaring non-christians
heretics?
<http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp>
Apparently the true text of the Bible is not the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek
compilation from the original writers and copyists, but the King James
version -- all other versions are perversions of Satan via the Jesuits.
M'kay.
Self-contradiction:
<http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0082/0082_01.asp>
No one with a sane mind would argue that Catholics do not accept Jesus
Christ. Chick repeatedly says (even in this same tract) that that is
the key to salvation. However, when he gives reasons for rejecting
Catholics from salvation, what are they? Idolatry is the only coherent
one. And even if that is a sin, should not acceptance of Jesus Christ
save the sinner? So apparently, it's NOT enough to accept Jesus into
your heart -- you also have to be sure that you do so while going to the
right church and avoiding certain rituals which can still screw it up
for you.
Not also the stereotypical italian-american look this Catholic is given.
All of the above:
<http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0278/0278_01.asp>
This tract has been discussed already in this thread.
--
WickedDyno
<joe...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote in message
> news:amg39.REMOVETHIS-
>
> > Chick's racist, anti-semitic, paranoid, lying, hate-filled tracts
> > portray just about the exact opposite
>
> Helpu whoah thats alot of accusations uve got there, can we seem some
> evidence or do we just have to assume a personal bias?
Read the tracts. Don't just look at the word "Jesus" and assume he
must be a pious, humble man.
> > of what I would expect a just and benevolent God to be like. They
> > serve no purpose except to cause the kind of people who make
> > spiritual decisions based on what little cartoon people tell them
> > to do (that is to say, the naive, the foolish, and the
> > unintelligent) to be more likely to make such a decision out of
> > fear of hellfire rather than a sincere belief in the message of
> > Jesus (a message, by the way, for which I hold great respect,
> > although I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus nor in the God
> > of the Bible).
>
> Helpu Jesus spoke more about hell than anyone else in the bible.
> Jesus claimed to be God and when they wished to stone him for
> claiming it he didnt correct them for thinking that he cl;aimed to be
> God. Jesus said the scriptures were true and testified of Him.
>
> Now, to have respect for the message of Jesus which you also believe
> to be a lie doesnt seem at all consistent. To believe that Jesus was
> a GOOD man but also believe that He lied about being GOd seems even
> more inconsistent
I find it more likely that his words were altered by men who wished to
gain power from them. It is also possible that he believed himself to
be God but was mistaken. Many people believe themselves to be God.
Today, they're called paranoid skitzophrenics, psychotics, or
megalomaniacs, depending on the nature of the disorder that produces
this belief.
And you did not address my point.
--
WickedDyno
<breathemail!dal...@uunet.uu.net> wrote:
> This group seems to me to be full of people afraid of
> christian belief.
I am not afraid of christian belief. I am afraid of what christians may
do because of their beliefs. Or have you forgotten a little thing
called the Spanish Inquisition?
> Reading the comments made there seem to be very
> few people on this group who are not atheists.
Which group is "this"? I count 4.
> So what is so worrying about those tracts.
That a person can publish them and be taken seriously by anyone.
> I had a look and liked the one about Evolution being
> a religion not a science.
That tract was completely misleading and full of lies. If you'd like, I
can discuss them in depth.
> To me evolution is a getout and people who support
> it are hoping there isn't a God.
>
> I'm sure there is............sorry.
You are incorrect. Not about there being a god -- I have no data to
either support or reject that :) -- but about evolutionists hoping there
is no God. Many of the people on this group (talk.origins) are
christian and accept evolution as the best scientific explanation for
the diversity of life on earth. The co-discoverer of the theory of
natural selection, Wallace, believed that God had created the human
intellect. The Catholic Church agrees...
Oh, but wait, of course. If you agree with Chick, the Pope is the
Antichrist and Catholics are damned to hell despite accepting Jesus into
their hearts, apparently because they pray to his mother as well as him.
WickedDyno
<joe...@prodigy.net> wrote:
I would not willingly worship a god like the one Jack Chick portrays in
his cartoons. Even with evidence before me unescapeable that he
existed, if he matched the murdering despot of a deity whose deeds Chick
champions, I would stand before him and deny that he is worthy of my
worship.
ras...@highfiber.com
>Go to Chick.com and review the titles available.
>
>Anyone who can find even one of these tracts that sounds remotely
>accurate, legitimate, or anything other than stark raving mad needs
>serious help. And yet there must be people stupid enough to accept
>these somehow.
>
>If you are one of these, then play devil's advocate and try to defend
>this lunacy to me.
For the record: I went, I read, I detested. The guy is a lousy
artist and a worse theologian. He reduces all of Christianity to a
self-centered fire-insurance policy for the afterlife. But I don't
think he's insane. Tedious, bigoted, and ill-educated, but not
insane.
The belief that one's own religion is God's Own Truth and everybody
else's is Evil Heresy lies, unfortunately, well within the normal
human range.
Adam Noel Harris
:In article <91e3jm$fnuu$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>, "crit"
:<joe...@prodigy.net> wrote:
:> Helpu I myself dont use tracts but maybe thats because of my own
:> pride and fear of being seen by others as foolish
:>
:> I too will try to defend them despite the attempts at social pressure
This is fairly scary. I can't imagine that the tracts could be drawn in a
much more egregious, offensive, hateful, or sick manner.
[...]
:Paranoia:
:
:<http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0030/0030_01.asp>
:He actually believes he is living in the end times. That Pope JP II,
:who has done more than any previous Pope to heal wounds between
:christian denominations and has encouraged peace and democracy in the
:many nations, is the antichrist. Note that he depicts the story of the
:ark as if it were history rather than a fable.
I looked at this one. Check out the sinners in the first couple of
panels. Crazy.
Of course, we don't know JP II will be the last Pope, who is the true
antichrist, according to Chick. Of course, he _is_ busy negotiating
takeovers of all the world's governments.
We also see a woman apparently being attacked. Is it really evil to
attack this woman, since she is probably an incestuous, murdering,
torturing, homosexual Satan-worshipper? Or maybe there were innocents
down there. I guess she ended up marrying one of Noah's sons, the only
lot who weren't being naughty.
Also note the baby being held up by his presumably evil mother in a futile
attempt to save him (or is she trying to torture him, which would only be
natural for an evil harlot like her). That little sinner probably used to
suckle at his mother's bossom, the incestuous monster!
"Paranoid" doesn't even touch Chick's deluded state.
[...]
-Adam
--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E
Aron-Ra
> news:amg39.REMOVETHIS-
>
> > Chick's racist, anti-semitic, paranoid, lying, hate-filled tracts
> > portray just about the exact opposite
>
> Helpu
> whoah thats alot of accusations uve got there, can we seem some
evidence or
> do we just have to assume a personal bias?
If you were looking for evidence to support these allegations, why did
you skip over my reply to the link Tim B. provided? I presented
volumes of evidence in that dissertation and I'm looking for any fool
who will dispute me in defense of that (or any other) tract.
I don't believe he lied. In fact, he said many times that he was not
God, that the father in Heaven was the father of all men, not just him,
and further warned of those around him not to perceive him as acting as
a god, but only as a man who God has chosen to work through. Jesus
seemed fairly consistant about *not* claiming to be a god I think.
crit
> In article <91e9b6$8e88$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > Chick's racist, anti-semitic, paranoid, lying, hate-filled tracts
> > > portray just about the exact opposite
Helpu
> > whoah thats alot of accusations uve got there, can we seem some
evidence or
> > do we just have to assume a personal bias?
> If you were looking for evidence to support these allegations, why did
you skip over my reply to the link Tim B. provided? I presented
> volumes of evidence in that dissertation and I'm looking for any fool
who will dispute me in defense of that (or any other) tract.
Helpu'
you cant expect anyone to sift thru such a lengthy post to find nuggets of
objection. Give us one or two objections at a time and lets discuss em
Helpu
if it can be shown to you that He did claim to be God , would that be enough
to cause you to believe that He was GOd?
crit
Adam Noel Harris <ad...@stanford.edu.XX> wrote in message
news:slrn93ljaa...@elaine11.Stanford.EDU...
> WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
In article <91e3jm$fnuu$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>, "crit"
> :<joe...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> :> Helpu I myself dont use tracts but maybe thats because of my own
> :> pride and fear of being seen by others as foolish
> :> I too will try to defend them despite the attempts at social pressure
> This is fairly scary. I can't imagine that the tracts could be drawn in a
> much more egregious, offensive, hateful, or sick manner.
Helpu
your criticism wont stand up under scrutiny
> :<http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0030/0030_01.asp>
He actually believes he is living in the end times. That Pope JP II,
> :who has done more than any previous Pope to heal wounds between
> :christian denominations and has encouraged peace and democracy in the
many nations, is the antichrist. Note that he depicts the story of the
> :ark as if it were history rather than a fable.
>
HBelpu
the POpe and the RCC teach the false gospel of works and people that teach
that gospel are teaching lies aqnd leading men from the truth.
> I looked at this one. Check out the sinners in the first couple of
> panels. Crazy.
> Of course, we don't know JP II will be the last Pope, who is the true
> antichrist, according to Chick. Of course, he _is_ busy negotiating
> takeovers of all the world's governments.
> We also see a woman apparently being attacked. Is it really evil to
attack this woman, since she is probably an incestuous, murdering,
> torturing, homosexual Satan-worshipper? Or maybe there were innocents
down there. I guess she ended up marrying one of Noah's sons, the only
> lot who weren't being naughty.
Helpu
are you building ur critique on apparentlies and reading into what may have
been happening in the picture?
> Also note the baby being held up by his presumably evil mother in a futile
> attempt to save him (or is she trying to torture him, which would only be
> natural for an evil harlot like her). That little sinner probably used to
> suckle at his mother's bossom, the incestuous monster!
>
> "Paranoid" doesn't even touch Chick's deluded state.
Helpu
are you serious?
that is the substance of your objection? your emotional reaction to some
pictures? yikes
crit
WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote in message
> I would not willingly worship a god like the one Jack Chick portrays in
> his cartoons. Even with evidence before me unescapeable that he
> existed, if he matched the murdering despot of a deity whose deeds Chick
> champions, I would stand before him and deny that he is worthy of my
> worship.
Helpu
you speak the truth, except that you wont stand before Him and deny His
worthiness;;;;all mouths will be stopped at His awesome presence
the bible says that no one seeks God and all have turned away. So you are
just one of the many, myself included ...until God had mercy on me and saved
me from myself
crit
WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote in message
To believe that Jesus was
> > a GOOD man but also believe that He lied about being GOd seems even
> > more inconsistent
> I find it more likely that his words were altered by men who wished to
gain power from them. It is also possible that he believed himself to
> be God but was mistaken. Many people believe themselves to be God.
Today, they're called paranoid skitzophrenics, psychotics, or
> megalomaniacs, depending on the nature of the disorder that produces
> this belief.
Helpu
you mean altered by people that made Jesus in there own image or the image
that they were most comfortable with and best suited their purposes? you
mean people that when they didnnt like or accept something about Jesus they
either denied it or claimed that others mustve changed the truth because
surely it mustve been as we thought it should be? is that the kind of person
that molds truth to his liking, that you exemplify?
> And you did not address my point.
Helpu
sorry dude could you run it by me again?
crit
WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote in message
> Racism:
> <http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1710/1710_01.asp>
This tract is described as "especially for native american *readers*",
> but presents a stereotypical portrayal of them, with virtually no
written words, as if he expects that Indians can't read anyway.
Helpu
you arent kidding are you?
> <http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0069/0069_01.asp>
> "You Stupid Jive Turkey!" (Yes, I know it was written in the 70's --
> but it's still a racist portrayal clearly concocted by a man whose
> concept of Black culture comes from watching too much Blaxploitation
> film.)
Helpu
using the common vanacular is not racist
if i use a southern accent and that is not my usuall accent that isnt racist
> Paranoia:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0030/0030_01.asp>
> He actually believes he is living in the end times. That Pope JP II,
> who has done more than any previous Pope to heal wounds between
christian denominations and has encouraged peace and democracy in the
> many nations, is the antichrist. Note that he depicts the story of the
ark as if it were history rather than a fable.
Helpu
the end times were referred to as the last segment of time in which Jesus
could return any day. He is correct
JPII is a teacher of the false gospel and leading many astray
the ark is history
> <http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0094/0094_01.asp>
> More insanity. I can't even begin to describe it. Just read it, and
> imagine which is more likely -- a secular government declaring
> christians heretics, or a christian government declaring non-christians
> heretics?
Helpu
like that has never happened?
> <http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp>
> Apparently the true text of the Bible is not the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek
> compilation from the original writers and copyists, but the King James
> version -- all other versions are perversions of Satan via the Jesuits.
Helpu
ok he does go overboard here
> Self-contradiction:
<http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0082/0082_01.asp>
> No one with a sane mind would argue that Catholics do not accept Jesus
Christ. Chick repeatedly says (even in this same tract) that that is
> the key to salvation. However, when he gives reasons for rejecting
Catholics from salvation, what are they? Idolatry is the only coherent
> one. And even if that is a sin, should not acceptance of Jesus Christ
save the sinner? So apparently, it's NOT enough to accept Jesus into
> your heart -- you also have to be sure that you do so while going to the
right church and avoiding certain rituals which can still screw it up
> for you.
Helpu
catholics trust in themselves and the church to save them
i dont think that you know enough of catholic teaching to judge this one
John Hattan
>you speak the truth, except that you wont stand before Him and deny His
>worthiness;;;;all mouths will be stopped at His awesome presence
So I guess it's safe to say that he's been drastically misquoted in
every source I've ever seen, because the descriptions of him in texts,
from Jack Chick to the Bible itself, draw him as a monster that deserves
nothing but contempt.
Weird how a universe-spanning god wouldn't lift a finger to correct the
lousy image of him that's portrayed in holy books.
crit
<ras...@highfiber.com> wrote in message
news:3a3ac976...@ediacara.org...
> In talk.origins, Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Go to Chick.com and review the titles available.
> >Anyone who can find even one of these tracts that sounds remotely
accurate, legitimate, or anything other than stark raving mad needs
> >serious help. And yet there must be people stupid enough to accept
these somehow.
> >If you are one of these, then play devil's advocate and try to defend
> >this lunacy to me.
> For the record: I went, I read, I detested. The guy is a lousy
artist and a worse theologian. He reduces all of Christianity to a
> self-centered fire-insurance policy for the afterlife. But I don't
> think he's insane. Tedious, bigoted, and ill-educated, but not
> insane.
Helpu\
He preaches Christ and in this I rejoice
> The belief that one's own religion is God's Own Truth and everybody
> else's is Evil Heresy lies, unfortunately, well within the normal
> human range.
Helpu
I dont think that he is saying that EVERYBODY ELSE except him is wrong.
Could that be an exaggeration? Do you believe that everybody else that
doesnt agree with you is wrong? You mean that if they disagree with you they
are right? Oh you mean you are both right? WHat about when they contradict
you?
Truth is truth. Believe it or not there are absolutes. We are not free to
believe and do whatever we feel like unless we are ready to bear the
consequences.
John Hattan
>you mean altered by people that made Jesus in there own image or the image
>that they were most comfortable with and best suited their purposes? you
>mean people that when they didnnt like or accept something about Jesus they
>either denied it or claimed that others mustve changed the truth because
>surely it mustve been as we thought it should be? is that the kind of person
>that molds truth to his liking, that you exemplify?
In other words, Paul.
crit
> On 15 Dec 2000 18:34:58 -0500, crit <joe...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >Helpu
> >please give reference to your claims of absurdity and un-christianness
> "Never attempt to teach a pig to sing.
> It wastes your time and annoys the pig."
> - Robert A. Heinlein
> If you can't see Chick tracts for the mindless, stupid, mean
> spirited, anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, un-Christian, moronic bundle
> of tripe they are, I can't imagine that any argument I make will
> matter the least bit of difference to you. In short, I don't give
> singing lessons, at least not for free.
Helpu
'translation: I will present my arguments and if you dont agree then I cant
waste my time with you LOL!
but really Mark isnt this what these boards are for? discussing our views.?
posing our arguments? not taking offense because someone presents something
contrary ?
I was persuaded of better things concerning you
Aron-Ra
"crit" <joe...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
>
> > 1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
>
> > - YHWH nebulously says you should not have any gods "before" him,
thus
> making an allowance for polytheism as long as he gets to be a boss.
>
> Helpu
> all these commands are for the good of the people as a group and
> individually
> following false Gods not only leads one away from the true God who is
the
> source of all good things but following after a false god leads one
into the
> evil practices assocaited with that god such as infant sacrifice.
Are we talking about infant sacrifices like when God told Abraham to
kill his own son and then said he was just kidding? Or are we talking
more along the lines of Exodus 12:29 when God goes through Egypt and
kills all the first-born children himself?
Is it a sacrifice if God kills the children himself as would be the
case in Leviticus 26:22 where he intends to use wild beasts to rob his
followers of their children? What about if he forces parents to eat
their own young as he has threatened to do at least four times in the
Old testament. Is it an infant sacrifice if is an abortion at the
point of a sword on God's command? Is it a sacrifice when God has
promised your children as slaves to your conquerors in God's armies?
The point is that your absolutely right and the worship of a false god
can lead to infant sacrifices. The Old Testament is certainly an old
testament to that.
> > 2. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what
is
> in heaven above or on earth beneath or in the water under the earth.
>
> > - Nobody obeys this commandment. Head down to your local cemetary
any
> day of the week to see hundreds of violations of this one from good
> > churchgoers.
>
> Helpu
> true and the command is given to to some degree hinder or make us
aware of
> this evil tendency in people to make idols
>
> > 3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the
> Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.
> >
> - Is a universe-spanning god so thin-skinned that he gets upset
whenever
> > anyone shouts his kid's name when they stub their toe?
>
> Helpu
> taking the LOrds name is vain reveals an irreverent prideful heart
but the
> soul that reverences the Lord obeys the LOrd and to obey the Lord is
> oneagain to the beenefit of all for all the commands are summed up
this way:
> 1; Love God 2. love others
>
> 4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall
labor
> and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord
your
> God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your
daughter,
> your male slave or your female slave or your cattle or your sojourner
> > who stays with you.
>
> - Slavery is wrong, period. Putting limits on how they are to be
treated
> only gives sanction to a barbaric practice.
>
> Helpu
> abuse of slaves is wrong just as abuse of employess is wrong. You
interpret
> from your own cultural bias but it appears the slavery was a
necessary evil
> in that time and though God didnt abolish it He put boundaries on it
to
> protect slaves
Nice bit of rationalizing there! However slavery was never a nessisary
evil. It was a cultural benefit to the victorious warriors of a
barbaric world. That's why they made up gods that support slavery
along with the same gods that think that the Earth is flat.
> 5. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be
prolonged in
> > the land which the Lord your God gives you.
> >
> - This one works for me, except for the fact that the penalty for
> > breaking this one, as is mentioned in Deuteronomy, is death by
stoning.
>
> Helpu
> Ill bet it was hard to find a rebellious son in those days and there
was a
> much more orderly youth.
I don't think so.
"What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders,
they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the
streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is
to become of them?"
--Plato
"Children are now tyrants...they no longer rise when elders enter the
room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up
dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize over their
teachers."
--Socrates
"Our earth is degenerate these latter days. There are signs that the
world is speedily coming to an end. Bribery and corruption are common."
--Inscription, 4800 year-old tablet
(quoted in Isaac Asimov's Book of Facts)
"We live in a decaying age. Young people no longer respect their
parents. They are rude and impatient. They frequently inhabit taverns
and have no self control."
--Inscription, 6000 year-old Egyptian tomb
(quoted in R.Buckminster Fuller's I Seem to be a Verb)
Remeber those were tough times and survvival was
> difficult so it was hard enough fighting the elements and outside
enemies
> with families united, imagine the difficulty and even impossibility of
> survival if their was internal strife and incooperativeness.
Which in and of itself binds family units together. No matter how you
rationalize this, stoning your children is horrific no matter what
their opinion of you. This is yet another way we can tell that the
Decalog was not written by any supreme being. It was not even a
superior one.
> > 6. You shall not kill.
>
> > - Works for me, but folks have to ignore it by and large to make
> allowances for war, capital punishment, westward expansion, etc.
>
> Helpu
> the word used for kill means murder
And what does that distinction make? I don't happen to think that it
excludes executioners or soldiers in any way.
> 7. You shall not commit adultery.
> >
> - Fine with me.
>
> > 8. You shall not steal.
>
> > - No problem. Wow, two in a row :)
>
> > 9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
>
> > - Why does the prohibition against lying only apply to the narrow
case
> of perjury? Why not "thou shalt not lie"?
>
> Helpu
> why do you restrict its meaning to court perjury? I like the wording
(it
> forbids false witness AGAINST ur neighbor) for it leaves room for
lies that
> would help ur neighbor namely lies told to an enemy seeking vengeance
as to
> the whereabouts of a friend(lie to those Nazis seeking to execute
Jews)
>
> >
> 10. You shall not covet you neighbor's house; you shall not covet
your
> > neighbor's wife or his male slave or his ox or his donkey or
anything
> that belongs to your neighbor.
> >
> - Not only is the wife mentioned in the inventory of that
which "belongs
> > to your neighbor", she's not even at the top of the list! Wives and
> slaves are lumped together in the list of property along with house
and
> > donkey. It's a ludicrous and barbaric relic of a barbaric society
>
> Helpu
> the list may or may not deem greater value to be those things first
on the
> list it may just be a division between inanimate objects and living
beings
> of which the wife is first on the list of living beings with the house
> including all inanimate possessions
>
> sheesh John! you really seem to have a strong negative bias
against the
> things of God and it is so obvious that it kinda discredits your
arguments
> before they are even rebutted
A negative bias could likely have been aquired in research. Indeed
many elements of the Bible warrant extremely negative criticism and
objective reason would suggest that we step back from the abhorant and
ask ourselves, "is this the work of a supreme being"?.
Being outraged at an atrocity revealed in the Bible and/or upon God's
command does not discredit our arguments. Our ability to consider the
implications of those hienous entries validates our position far more
than anyone's unquestioning faith ever could.
You may be as hostile as you like, but you'd better come with something
substantial to back them up. As long as you have valid points or
reasonable logic or legitimate evidence, we don't care what your
demeanor might be.
> I could be wrong but these are my perspectives..
Hang onto that thought.
The first step to objectivity is realizing that your opponant could be
right and you will never learn the truth if you are convinced that you
already know it.
WickedDyno
<joe...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote in message
> news:amg39.REMOVETHIS-E2...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
> > Racism:
>
> > <http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1710/1710_01.asp>
> > This tract is described as "especially for native american *readers*",
> > but presents a stereotypical portrayal of them, with virtually no
> > written words, as if he expects that Indians can't read anyway.
>
>
> Helpu
> you arent kidding are you?
No I'm not. When I read that cartoon, I was disgusted by his portrayal
of Indians and his disrespect for their culture.
> > <http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0069/0069_01.asp>
> > "You Stupid Jive Turkey!" (Yes, I know it was written in the 70's --
> > but it's still a racist portrayal clearly concocted by a man whose
> > concept of Black culture comes from watching too much Blaxploitation
> > film.)
>
> Helpu
> using the common vanacular is not racist
> if i use a southern accent and that is not my usuall accent that isnt
> racist
Using slang is not necessarily racist. In this context, it's pretty
clear what kind of picture Chick has about african americans -- or at
least had when he wrote this. And he doesn't seem like the kinda guy
who'd be open to change, y'know what I'm sayin'?
> > Paranoia:
>
> > <http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0030/0030_01.asp>
> > He actually believes he is living in the end times. That Pope JP II,
> > who has done more than any previous Pope to heal wounds between
> > christian denominations and has encouraged peace and democracy in the
> > many nations, is the antichrist. Note that he depicts the story of the
> > ark as if it were history rather than a fable.
>
>
> Helpu
> the end times were referred to as the last segment of time in which Jesus
> could return any day. He is correct
Well, obviously, if Jesus is coming back he could certainly choose to do
so at any time. But his absurd statements about prophecies being
fulfilled in the things we see today? Tell me you don't believe that.
Please.
> JPII is a teacher of the false gospel and leading many astray
And you know this how, precisely? Did Jesus tell you that? Or did your
preacher-man?
> the ark is history
The Ark as described in the Bible is too large and too small to carry
out its required task. Too large -- it would never have survived the
rough seas that such a storm would cause. Our best shipwrights today
can't build a wooden boat that big that could survive even a calm sea,
even with steel reinforcement. But even as it is too big to survive, it
is far, far too small to save two of each species of animal that would
have died in the flood, to say nothing of plants which also would have
drowned, to say nothing of the lack of food, water, air, to say nothing
of the inconcievability of half-a-dozen people caring for that many
animals, to say nothing about the total lack of food for the animals
after they disembarked, to say nothing about the population growth rates
that would be required in order to recover populations from the Flood to
the number of Jews and Egyptians described in Exodus, to say nothing
about how other civilizations seem to have continued just fine over the
interval the bible indicates for the flood, to say nothing about how it
just plain didn't happen.
> > <http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0094/0094_01.asp>
> > More insanity. I can't even begin to describe it. Just read it, and
> > imagine which is more likely -- a secular government declaring
> > christians heretics, or a christian government declaring non-christians
> > heretics?
>
> Helpu
> like that has never happened?
Both have occurred. The latter has occurred far more often. Even more
common is christians declaring other christians heretics.
> > <http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp>
> > Apparently the true text of the Bible is not the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek
> > compilation from the original writers and copyists, but the King James
> > version -- all other versions are perversions of Satan via the Jesuits.
>
> Helpu
> ok he does go overboard here
Just a tad...
> > Self-contradiction:
> > <http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0082/0082_01.asp>
> > No one with a sane mind would argue that Catholics do not accept Jesus
> > Christ. Chick repeatedly says (even in this same tract) that that is
> > the key to salvation. However, when he gives reasons for rejecting
> > Catholics from salvation, what are they? Idolatry is the only coherent
> > one. And even if that is a sin, should not acceptance of Jesus Christ
> > save the sinner? So apparently, it's NOT enough to accept Jesus into
> > your heart -- you also have to be sure that you do so while going to
> > the
> > right church and avoiding certain rituals which can still screw it up
> > for you.
>
> Helpu
> catholics trust in themselves and the church to save them
> i dont think that you know enough of catholic teaching to judge this one
I know that they believe in Jesus Christ. I know that they call upon
him to forgive them their sins. Is it not written that "whoever calls
upon the name of the Lord shall be saved"?
Or are there complications? Is it possible to believe in Jesus and
still be damned?
At least the Catholics I know are honest in their response to that
question. They told me that knowledge of who is to be damned and saved
belongs to God alone, and they don't know whether someone who believes
in Jesus could be damned or whether someone who does not could be saved.
Jack Chick purports to know for sure.
Kronius
> Now then, let's cover one of the more fun ones, you Jive Turkey. . .
>
> http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0069/0069_01.asp
>
My favorite has always been Big Daddy:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
I love the way Chick portrays professors as raving mad men. Ironically,
he is much more guilty of religious intolerance than professors are.
But my favorite part is Chicks "explaination" of particle physics on
frame 18. "Protons have positive charges. One law of electricity is
LIKE CHARGES REPEL EACH OTHER! Since all the protons in the nucleus are
positively charged, they should repel each other and scatter into
space." Chick then suggests that Jesus, not the strong nuclear force, is
responsible for holding nuclei together.
The first time I read that tract I laughed my ass off.
Kronius
> I love the way Chick portrays professors as raving mad men.
> Ironically, he is much more guilty of religious intolerance than
> professors are.
I did not mean to imply here that professors are, in fact, guilty of
religious intolerance, only less so than Chick...
Adam Noel Harris
:
:Adam Noel Harris <ad...@stanford.edu.XX> wrote in message
:news:slrn93ljaa...@elaine11.Stanford.EDU...
:> WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
:In article <91e3jm$fnuu$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>, "crit"
:> :<joe...@prodigy.net> wrote:
:
:> :> Helpu I myself dont use tracts but maybe thats because of my own
:> :> pride and fear of being seen by others as foolish
:
:> :> I too will try to defend them despite the attempts at social pressure
:
:> This is fairly scary. I can't imagine that the tracts could be drawn in a
:> much more egregious, offensive, hateful, or sick manner.
:
:Helpu
:your criticism wont stand up under scrutiny
Lucky me.
:> :<http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0030/0030_01.asp>
:He actually believes he is living in the end times. That Pope JP II,
:> :who has done more than any previous Pope to heal wounds between
:> :christian denominations and has encouraged peace and democracy in the
:many nations, is the antichrist. Note that he depicts the story of the
:> :ark as if it were history rather than a fable.
:>
:
:HBelpu
:the POpe and the RCC teach the false gospel of works and people that teach
:that gospel are teaching lies aqnd leading men from the truth.
The Pope preaches Christ. And in that you rejoice.
:> I looked at this one. Check out the sinners in the first couple of
:> panels. Crazy.
:
:> Of course, we don't know JP II will be the last Pope, who is the true
:> antichrist, according to Chick. Of course, he _is_ busy negotiating
:> takeovers of all the world's governments.
:
:> We also see a woman apparently being attacked. Is it really evil to
: attack this woman, since she is probably an incestuous, murdering,
:> torturing, homosexual Satan-worshipper? Or maybe there were innocents
: down there. I guess she ended up marrying one of Noah's sons, the only
:> lot who weren't being naughty.
:
:
:Helpu
:are you building ur critique on apparentlies and reading into what may have
:been happening in the picture?
What do you think was being depicted in that panel? Do you think there
were any innocent people drowned in the flood depicted in the tract and in
the Bible, or were they all killed off by the evil people ahead of time?
:> Also note the baby being held up by his presumably evil mother in a futile
:
:> attempt to save him (or is she trying to torture him, which would only be
:> natural for an evil harlot like her). That little sinner probably used to
:> suckle at his mother's bossom, the incestuous monster!
:>
:> "Paranoid" doesn't even touch Chick's deluded state.
:
:
:Helpu
:are you serious?
Yes. Is Chick? Are you?
:that is the substance of your objection? your emotional reaction to some
:pictures? yikes
My objection was that Chick's tract is offensive and sick. Of course the
substance is my emotional reaction. Was your only reaction to rejoice?
WickedDyno
<joe...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote in message
> news:amg39.REMOVETHIS-6F...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu.
> ..
> > I would not willingly worship a god like the one Jack Chick
> > portrays in his cartoons. Even with evidence before me
> > unescapeable that he existed, if he matched the murdering despot of
> > a deity whose deeds Chick champions, I would stand before him and
> > deny that he is worthy of my worship.
>
>
> Helpu you speak the truth, except that you wont stand before Him and
> deny His worthiness;;;;all mouths will be stopped at His awesome
> presence
If I am unable to speak I will think it. If I am unable to think, I
will feel it in my heart.
> the bible says that no one seeks God and all have turned away. So
> you are just one of the many, myself included ...until God had mercy
> on me and saved me from myself
Why should God make it that way?
Mark VandeWettering
>
>Mark VandeWettering <ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org> wrote in message
>news:slrn93le77...@peewee.telescopemaking.org...
>> On 15 Dec 2000 18:34:58 -0500, crit <joe...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>> >Helpu
>> >please give reference to your claims of absurdity and un-christianness
>
>> "Never attempt to teach a pig to sing.
>> It wastes your time and annoys the pig."
>
>> - Robert A. Heinlein
>
>> If you can't see Chick tracts for the mindless, stupid, mean
>> spirited, anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, un-Christian, moronic bundle
>> of tripe they are, I can't imagine that any argument I make will
>> matter the least bit of difference to you. In short, I don't give
>> singing lessons, at least not for free.
>
>Helpu
>'translation: I will present my arguments and if you dont agree then I cant
>waste my time with you LOL!
I thought the way I said it had a bit more zip.
>but really Mark isnt this what these boards are for? discussing our views.?
>posing our arguments? not taking offense because someone presents something
>contrary ?
That might be true if there was actually some subject of legitimate dispute.
There is not. The Chick tracts are everything I claimed above and more.
If anyone disputes that, they are in no place that vaguely resembles the
universe that I live in, and therefore I'd just be wasting my time talking
to them.
You've presented no arguments. You've claimed you don't see anything
wrong with them. I see plenty wrong with them. There is no moderate
common ground for us to meet upon, so discussion is pointless.
>I was persuaded of better things concerning you
Sorry to disappoint.
Mark VandeWettering
>Paranoia:
><http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0030/0030_01.asp>
>He actually believes he is living in the end times. That Pope JP II,
>who has done more than any previous Pope to heal wounds between
>christian denominations and has encouraged peace and democracy in the
>many nations, is the antichrist. Note that he depicts the story of the
>ark as if it were history rather than a fable.
I must admit, having been a Roman Catholic, I find fundamentalist views
about Catholicism to be...creative. The Catholic church has many things
which I found distressing, such as the limited role that women can play,
their stand against birth control and the like, and of course Church
history is intimately tied with all manner of misdeeds. To deny that
would be untruthful, and make one look like an idiot.
Nonetheless, Mr. Chick would have you believe that the Catholic
Church is a bunch of idolatrous Papists who believe they can buy
their way into heaven with indulgences. It is a good thing that
many Catholics devote more time to studying their own religion than
Mr. Chick did.
Despite Mr. Chick's assertions, Catholics don't worship the Pope,
Catholics don't believe the Pope is God, the Pope doesn't think he
is God, Catholics don't believe they can buy their way into heaven
with indulgences, they do not symbolically share in the crucifiction
by receiving Holy Communion... and on... and on.. and on. If Mr.
Chick is so uncomfortable with Catholics, perhaps he should learn
something about them first.
><http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp>
>Apparently the true text of the Bible is not the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek
>compilation from the original writers and copyists, but the King James
>version -- all other versions are perversions of Satan via the Jesuits.
Ah, those damned Jesuits. They are just a little too smart to be
good Christians.
It is apparent to me that the concept of well educated priests
dedicated to learning and education is probably viewed with a great
deal of fear by Christians such as Chick, and probably with good
reason. People are often afraid of those who make them look foolish.
>Self-contradiction:
><http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0082/0082_01.asp>
>No one with a sane mind would argue that Catholics do not accept Jesus
>Christ. Chick repeatedly says (even in this same tract) that that is
>the key to salvation. However, when he gives reasons for rejecting
>Catholics from salvation, what are they? Idolatry is the only coherent
>one.
Catholicism is not about idolatry.
>And even if that is a sin, should not acceptance of Jesus Christ
>save the sinner?
I wonder just what Mr. Chick thinks Confession is all about? Or for
that matter ALL of the sacraments that Catholics celebrate?
>So apparently, it's NOT enough to accept Jesus into
>your heart -- you also have to be sure that you do so while going to the
>right church and avoiding certain rituals which can still screw it up
>for you.
Yep. Bugs me too.
WickedDyno
<joe...@prodigy.net> wrote:
I'm sorry you think of me that way. I can only make judgements as logic
guides me, and logic tells me it is more likely that a man lied or
fooled himself into believing that another man was God, or that a man
thought he was God when he was not, than that the other man was in fact
God.
> > And you did not address my point.
>
>
> Helpu
> sorry dude could you run it by me again?
I guess it wasn't that clear. The Chick tracts appeal to one's fears,
particularly of the unsophisticated. He says, accept Jesus or burn in
hell. Not because Jesus loves you. Because you're gonna fry if you
don't. Not because the message of Jesus will bring you peace and
understanding. Because you're destined for an eternity of suffering
(talk about cruel and unusual punishment) if you don't.
It strikes me as extremely shallow, appealing to the reader's fears and
manipulating his emotions (or trying to, quite clumsily) as if one were
trying to trick or scare him into accepting Jesus. Frankly, it disgusts
me. I'm reminded of a saying I heard once -- it went something like
"There is a special circle of hell reserved for those who only believed
in it because they thought they'd go there if they didn't."
WickedDyno
ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering) wrote:
> WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
<s>
> >Self-contradiction:
> ><http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0082/0082_01.asp>
> >No one with a sane mind would argue that Catholics do not accept Jesus
> >Christ. Chick repeatedly says (even in this same tract) that that is
> >the key to salvation. However, when he gives reasons for rejecting
> >Catholics from salvation, what are they? Idolatry is the only coherent
> >one.
>
> Catholicism is not about idolatry.
I know that, but Chick thinks it is. My point is that even if catholics
were committing the sin of idolatry, they still should be saved by
virtue of accepting Jesus. That is, if there is to be any consistency
in the theology. (Not that I really expect there to be...)
> >And even if that is a sin, should not acceptance of Jesus Christ
> >save the sinner?
>
> I wonder just what Mr. Chick thinks Confession is all about? Or for
> that matter ALL of the sacraments that Catholics celebrate?
It's pretty clear from the comic what he thinks of confession -- or what
he wants you to think -- that the priest is taking over the role of God
as the granter of forgiveness.
There are other comics about mass (the ritual, not the physical
property) and transubstantiation.
> >So apparently, it's NOT enough to accept Jesus into
> >your heart -- you also have to be sure that you do so while going to the
> >right church and avoiding certain rituals which can still screw it up
> >for you.
>
> Yep. Bugs me too.
I suppose, if he made more sense, he wouldn't be the same Chick. OTOH,
that couldn't help but be a good thing.
hrgr...@my-deja.com
Sure. Example: "Every polynomial with real coefficients has a root in
the field of complex numbers". In contrast, "the Christian God exists"
is true for Christians, false for Muslims, and "unproven" for weak
atheists. This should make you doubt that this statement is an absolute.
We are not free to
> believe and do whatever we feel like unless we are ready to bear the
> consequences.
>
With rational people, believing or not believing is not a matter of
choice, but of being convinced by evidence. They do not "believe
whatever they feel like".
The mindset of those who think that one can "choose to believe" is
really strange. I invite them to test their convictions by choosing to
believe in Zeus this afternoon, and then in Odin for the rest of the
day.
HRG.
Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.
Honus
>
> In article <3A39D839...@earthlink.net> Honus <hon...@earthlink.net> writes:
> <
> {...}
> <
> <I wonder why Chick left out the quail that came from the sea? Dead quail
> <covering the ground to a depth of three feet, for a days walk in any
> <direction? Please. On second thought, I don't wonder why he left it out.
>
> Me either. Would you want to have to *draw* all that? You'd have
> to be Sergio Aragones.
I love that guy. And I'd love to see him take on the Bible. I'd pay good
money for that!
> <"The top of the mountain was on fire and it quacked in God's presence."
> <Anyone that puts on that kind of a production when he makes his entrance
> <is kind of a loon.
>
> Why? A quacking mountain, what's so loony about that? I can imagine
> Chuck Jones doing it in a heartbeat.
Argh. That "loony" crack must have been Freudian.
> Sorry to pick and choose among your excellent post for a few
> items to mention from the comics afficiando's point of
> view. In truth, this is one of the most well structured
> and best written posts of its kind I've seen for quite
> a while. It's a keeper.
You're much too kind. ;)
--
We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever
believed in.
Some of us just go one god further.
Richard Dawkins
Honus
>
> In article <3A39D839...@earthlink.net>, Honus
> <hon...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> <s>
> > "The top of the mountain was on fire and it quacked in God's presence."
> > Anyone that puts on that kind of a production when he makes his entrance
> > is kind of a loon.
>
<gbg> Thanks for glossing over the other typos. ;)
Honus
>
> WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote in message
> news:amg39.REMOVETHIS-
>
> > > Anyone that puts on that kind of a production when he makes his entrance
> > > is kind of a loon.
>
Gesundheit.
<snip>
>...message of the cross is foolishness to those that are
> perishing but to us that are being saved it is the power of God.
<snip>
Has it ever occured to you that the above is the same kind of reasoning
that most every other cult uses to keep its sheep in line? Us vs. them,
they're ignorant and don't understand, you're in and they're out, yada
yada yada. Seriously, if you used that above statement as a sig file and
attributed it to David Koresh or Jim Jones I wouldn't have batted an
eye...it's typical, business-as-usual manipulation.
Honus
>
> WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote in message
> news:amg39.REMOVETHIS-
>
> > portray just about the exact opposite
>
> Helpu
> whoah thats alot of accusations uve got there, can we seem some evidence or
> do we just have to assume a personal bias?
Evidence? We _are_ all talking about Chick tracts, aren't we?
> Jesus spoke more about hell than anyone else in the bible.
So?
> Jesus claimed to be God and when they wished to stone him for claiming it he
> didnt correct them for thinking that he cl;aimed to be God.
Again, so? Maybe he really believed. He wasn't the first, if in fact he
did; and he won't be the last.
> Jesus said the
> scriptures were true and testified of Him.
And yet again, so? The so-called prophecies are vague...at least when
it's plain that they're -not- talking about the future Jesus. And anyone
with the slightest knowledge of PR can manipulate their history (or what
they claim) to match vague prophecies. Personally, had I been Jesus I
would have changed my name to Immanuel. ;) If you're going to do
something, do it right!
> Now, to have respect for the message of Jesus which you also believe to be a
> lie doesnt seem at all consistent. To believe that Jesus was a GOOD man but
> also believe that He lied about being GOd seems even more inconsistent
I realise that that was directed at someone other than me, but not all
of us believe that he was a good man. I'm told that In Ye Olde Biblical
Times the word "dog" was considered to be a tremendous insult.
If I may be allowed to cut and paste:
Matthew 15
21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon.
22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord,
Son of David, have mercy on me! My
daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."
23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged
him, "Send her away, for she keeps cryingout after us."
24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."
25 The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.
26 He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it
to their dogs."
27 "Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall
from their masters' table."
28 Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is
granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
That's the whole story. No commentary on a possibly object lesson, or
indication that this was some sort of educational parable. In the fine
tradition of not adding anything to the Bible that isn't there to begin
with, this is just a description of (to me, at any rate) an incident of
bigotry that shows us Jesus appreciated clever people. I wonder what
would have happened if that non-Hebrew woman wasn't so quick-witted? It
seems to me that she, again a non-Hebrew, showed great faith in the
first place by just showing up seeking his help. It would have taken
ZERO effort on His part to heal the child; a child guilty of nothing
more than being a Caananite. That's confusing in itself...Caanan was the
old name for Israel, along with Palestine. Of course, when we turn to
Mark 7:26 we hear the same story again. Only this time the woman is
identified as a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. Oh, that clears it all
up. ;/
Let's change a few words, and you'll see how -I- view this event.
Matthew 15
21 Leaving that place, Massa (a driver for grocer.com) withdrew to the
region south of Macon and Dixon.
22 A Negro woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Massa, Son
of Commerce, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly
from hunger."
23 Massa did not answer a word. So his dispatcher came to him and urged
him, "Send her away, for she keeps pestering me."
24 He answered, "I was sent only to feed the Whites of the antebellum
South."
25 The woman came and knelt before him. "Massa, help me!" she said.
26 He replied, "It is not right to take the White, Southern people's
bread and toss it to their dogs."
27 "Yes, Massa," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall
from their masters' table."
28 Then Jesus answered, "Darkie, you have great wit! Aw, why not?" And
her daughter was fed that very hour.
If I were Matt, I'd have left this story out. And don't get me started
on Mother Theresa. <g>
Honus
>
> In article <3A39D839...@earthlink.net>,
> Honus <hon...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > k. I'll pick one at random.
> > >
> > > Sin Busters.
> > >
> > > http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0278/0278_01.asp
> > >
> > > Please explain the problems you have with this.
> >
> Snip an incredibly long explanation of the problems with the 10
> Commandments in general and the Chick Tract in particular.
He asked for the problems. Is it my fault that there are so damned many
of them?
> So, like, do you believe in the 10 commandments or what then?
Sure. I also believe in the Three Laws of Robotics, and Murphy's Rules
of Combat. (Tracers work both ways, Never forget that your weapon was
built by the lowest bidder, etc.) I'm not sure what you mean by believe?
I kind of thought my position was pretty clear. <g>
Honus
> following false Gods not only leads one away from the true God who is the
> source of all good things but following after a false god leads one into the
> evil practices assocaited with that god such as infant sacrifice
I remind you that if God is indeed the source of all good things, he's
equally the source of all bad things. And as for sacrificing ones
children to Jehovah, what about the story of Abraham and Isaac? God
asked Abraham to sacrifice his child to Him. God asked that of Abraham.
God. And Abraham didn't even blink. What was that you said about "evil
practices"? And let us not forget the story of Jephtha, who sacrificed
his daughter to Jehovah. Jephtha, in Judges 11:30 vows that if God helps
him defeat the Ammonites, "whatever comes out of the door of my house to
meet me when I return in triumph...will be the Lord's, and I will
sacrifice it as a burnt offering." I bring this one up because although
it's true that God didn't personally make this request, what do you
suppose the Jehovah of the Old Testament would have done if Jephtha
hadn't followed through on his promise? For those unfamiliar with the
story, Jephtha did indeed win the battle. The first thing to come out of
his door to greet him was his only child whom he eventually killed and
burned as a sacrifice to the Lord. (What did he expect to greet him
through the door, his favorite goat? This chapter, by the way, is
complete with "God said to the Israelites" and "...the Israelites said
to the Lord...". In other words, there was direct communication going on
and it's reasonable to expect that Jephtha would have heard about it if
he reneged. A real man would have of course handled the situation
differently. This reminds me of Lot offering up his daughters to the
mob. What an enlightened position regarding females.) In chapter 12 we
learn that Jephtha is made the "judge" (leader) of all Israel. The Bible
says nothing about this being a stupid prayer on Jephtha's part...it's
just presented as-is. I'd have left it out if I were out to win
reasonable minds.
> - Slavery is wrong, period. Putting limits on how they are to be treated
> only gives sanction to a barbaric practice.
>
> Helpu
> abuse of slaves is wrong just as abuse of employess is wrong. You interpret
> from your own cultural bias but it appears the slavery was a necessary evil
> in that time and though God didnt abolish it He put boundaries on it to
> protect slaves
Cultural bias my butt. It's relative morality, and alone it pretty much
destroys the Bible in my not-so-humble opinion. Slavery cannot be a
"necessary evil". How can you compare the abuse of employees who can
(usually) walk away or hit back, with the abuse of slaves who have no
options? And it's even worse for Christian slaves; if they followed the
admonitions in the Bible they had no option whatsoever. In 1 Peter 2:18
slaves are told to submit themselves with all respect not only to good
masters, but also to those who are harsh. How convenient...for the
slave-holder. If I held chattel, were a religious leader of some sort
and wanted an easy way to control the superstitious sheep in my flock,
that's pretty much the line that I'd use. Was slavery in the States a
"necessary evil" allowed by God? Because I'll bet my left "stone" that
more than one slave-holder quoted 1 Peter 2:18 (and the several other
New Testament verses of a similar nature) to his chattel as a means of
keeping them in line. After all, converting the ignorant savages of all
sorts has been a primary excuse for slavery...why stop there, when the
Bible gives a slave-holder so much more authority? Make them Christian,
and then use God's word to keep them in check. It's quite a diabolical
situation that God set up there. Christians of my acquaintance all
believe that deep down, everyone knows that Jehovah is the one true God.
If a slave is converted because of what he "knows" in his heart (because
God put it there), he's really screwed. He's got to follow God's Word,
which means if he gets a ticket for any underground railroad rides,
he'll have to pass.
And to show how silly this all is, here we have a God providing rules
and guidelines for owning people on the one hand (because it's a
"necessary evil") while with his other hand he's making up rules like we
find in Deuteronomy 23:1 "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his
privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the
Lord." (I trust we all know what "stones" and "privy member" mean.)
Priorities, Lord...priorities.
As for boundaries on slavery that protect the slave, let's look at one:
Exodus 21:20 says that if you beat your male or female slave with a rod
and they die, you must be punished. But if they get up after a day or
two you're not to be punished since the slave is your property. I'd have
expected better "protection" from the Almighty, but I suppose it's
better than nothing.
> why do you restrict its meaning to court perjury? I like the wording(it
> forbids false witness AGAINST ur neighbor) for it leaves room for lies that
> would help ur neighbor namely lies told to an enemy seeking vengeance as to
> the whereabouts of a friend(lie to those Nazis seeking to execute Jews)
But wait! Romans 13:1-2 "Everyone must submit himself to the governing
authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has
established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against
what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on
themselves." Of course, there are other verses that say to obey God
only, so I guess you can pick and choose.
> sheesh John! you really seem to have a strong negative bias against the
> things of God and it is so obvious that it kinda discredits your arguments
> before they are even rebutted
Sheesh crit! you really seem to have a strong negative bias against the
opinions of those who don't believe in your god and it is so obvious
that it kinda discredits your arguments before they are even rebutted
> I could be wrong but these are my perspectives..
Hey, all you have to do is seek answers in the Word. Oh, wait...it seems
that doesn't always work. ;)
Honus
>
> On 15 Dec 2000 18:34:58 -0500, crit <joe...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >Helpu
> >please give reference to your claims of absurdity and un-christianness
>
> "Never attempt to teach a pig to sing.
> It wastes your time and annoys the pig."
>
> - Robert A. Heinlein
>
> If you can't see Chick tracts for the mindless, stupid, mean
> spirited, anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, un-Christian, moronic bundle
> of tripe they are, I can't imagine that any argument I make will
> matter the least bit of difference to you. In short, I don't give
> singing lessons, at least not for free.
Ah, but you forget the fence-sitters. They're a great source of
motivation...at least they are once you've convinced yourself that they
do indeed exist. At times, I'm not sure.
John Hattan
>John Hattan <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
First off, I notice that it's interesting that you snipped out my
question of WHICH decalogue we should follow. There's one in Ex 20 and
another in Ex 34.
Perhaps I should've addressed the ones in Ex 34 instead.
>> 1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
>
>> - YHWH nebulously says you should not have any gods "before" him, thus
> making an allowance for polytheism as long as he gets to be a boss.
>
>Helpu
>all these commands are for the good of the people as a group and
>individually
>following false Gods not only leads one away from the true God who is the
>source of all good things but following after a false god leads one into the
>evil practices assocaited with that god such as infant sacrifice
So then, why does YHWH allow people to worship false gods?
>> 2. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is
> in heaven above or on earth beneath or in the water under the earth.
>
>> - Nobody obeys this commandment. Head down to your local cemetary any
> day of the week to see hundreds of violations of this one from good
>> churchgoers.
>
>Helpu
>true and the command is given to to some degree hinder or make us aware of
>this evil tendency in people to make idols
So it's really more of a guideline than a commandment. Weird that, since
it's one of the ten biggies, that he has no intention of us followin it.
>> 3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the
> Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.
>>
> - Is a universe-spanning god so thin-skinned that he gets upset whenever
>> anyone shouts his kid's name when they stub their toe?
>
>Helpu
>taking the LOrds name is vain reveals an irreverent prideful heart but the
>soul that reverences the Lord obeys the LOrd and to obey the Lord is
>oneagain to the beenefit of all for all the commands are summed up this way:
>1; Love God 2. love others
Then why bother with these ten unruly relics of bygone times? Why not
just state those two and give Moses' wrists a break?
> 4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor
> and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your
> God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter,
> your male slave or your female slave or your cattle or your sojourner
>> who stays with you.
>
> - Slavery is wrong, period. Putting limits on how they are to be treated
> only gives sanction to a barbaric practice.
>
>
>Helpu
>abuse of slaves is wrong just as abuse of employess is wrong. You interpret
>from your own cultural bias but it appears the slavery was a necessary evil
>in that time and though God didnt abolish it He put boundaries on it to
>protect slaves
Bullshit. You are not permitted to beat your employees and be held
blameless if they don't die for two days, and you would not just pay a
fine if your employee did die from the beating. You are not permitted to
sell an employee's children.
Are you really equating slavery with employment?
> 5. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in
>> the land which the Lord your God gives you.
>>
> - This one works for me, except for the fact that the penalty for
>> breaking this one, as is mentioned in Deuteronomy, is death by stoning.
>
>Helpu
>Ill bet it was hard to find a rebellious son in those days and there was a
>much more orderly youth. Remeber those were tough times and survvival was
>difficult so it was hard enough fighting the elements and outside enemies
>with families united, imagine the difficulty and even impossibility of
>survival if their was internal strife and incooperativeness.
I am amazed that you actually think this way.
If Blockbuster started a policy of putting guns to the heads of people
who refuse to rewind videos and pulling the trigger, people would make
sure their videos were rewound when they returned them.
Is the luxury of having obedient children really worth the amount of
children who would have to be executed in order to make it happen? If a
child respects you out of fear of execution, does he actually respect
you?
>> 6. You shall not kill.
>
>> - Works for me, but folks have to ignore it by and large to make
> allowances for war, capital punishment, westward expansion, etc.
>
>Helpu
>the word used for kill means murder
Of course, who gets to define murder? For example, was the slaughter of
thousands of native Americans during the colonial expansion murder? Are
people killed in a war that could have been solved diplomatically
murder?
Sorry kid, but if the word "murder" gets to be defined by society, then
a commandment dictated by a god is of no worth.
> 7. You shall not commit adultery.
>>
> - Fine with me.
>
>> 8. You shall not steal.
>
>> - No problem. Wow, two in a row :)
>
>> 9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
>
>> - Why does the prohibition against lying only apply to the narrow case
> of perjury? Why not "thou shalt not lie"?
>
>Helpu
>why do you restrict its meaning to court perjury? I like the wording(it
>forbids false witness AGAINST ur neighbor) for it leaves room for lies that
>would help ur neighbor namely lies told to an enemy seeking vengeance as to
>the whereabouts of a friend(lie to those Nazis seeking to execute Jews)
Being a false witness is claiming to have witnessed something that did
not happen. It is not simply lying. I could lie to my neighbor without
being a false witness.
> 10. You shall not covet you neighbor's house; you shall not covet your
>> neighbor's wife or his male slave or his ox or his donkey or anything
> that belongs to your neighbor.
>>
> - Not only is the wife mentioned in the inventory of that which "belongs
>> to your neighbor", she's not even at the top of the list! Wives and
> slaves are lumped together in the list of property along with house and
>> donkey. It's a ludicrous and barbaric relic of a barbaric society
>
>Helpu
>the list may or may not deem greater value to be those things first on the
>list it may just be a division between inanimate objects and living beings
>of which the wife is first on the list of living beings with the house
>including all inanimate possessions
What's your point? Are wives and slaves in the list of things that
"belong" to your neighbor or not?
>sheesh John! you really seem to have a strong negative bias against the
>things of God and it is so obvious that it kinda discredits your arguments
>before they are even rebutted
Because they're not written by a god. They were written by superstitious
men.
Mike Haubrich
"Honus" <hon...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3A39D839...@earthlink.net...
> Tim B wrote:
> >
> > k. I'll pick one at random.
> >
> > Sin Busters.
> >
> > http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0278/0278_01.asp
> >
> > Please explain the problems you have with this.
>
[snip a lot of great stuff that I agree with]
>
> "That's why He died for us." Hmm. A god sacrificing Himself to Himself.
> No, it just doesn't work for me. Especially when he's, you know...a god.
> I'd wager that most people I know would do what it's said Jesus did if
> they were assured of the same result. BFD. I'm not impressed. As a
> matter of fact, I've got a problem with anyone who -wouldn't- do it, if
> they in fact knew all the details straight from the mouth of God. God
> giving up a piece of god is NOT the same as me giving up my son. Period.
> There are no parallels, starting with the fact that I actually slept
> with my son's mother and ending with the fact that I don't -know- that
> he's going to be returned to me in all his heavenly glory. And what's
> with all this "precious blood" stuff? Jesus' blood wasn't anymore
> precious than anyone else's.
This is the thrust of the problem I have with Christianity.
Mike Haubrich
"crit" <joe...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:91enqn$1jj8$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:91em8r$3m8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <91e9b6$8e88$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > > Chick's racist, anti-semitic, paranoid, lying, hate-filled tracts
> > > > portray just about the exact opposite
>
> Helpu
> > > whoah thats alot of accusations uve got there, can we seem some
> evidence or
> > > do we just have to assume a personal bias?
>
> you skip over my reply to the link Tim B. provided? I presented
> > volumes of evidence in that dissertation and I'm looking for any fool
> who will dispute me in defense of that (or any other) tract.
>
>
> Helpu'
> you cant expect anyone to sift thru such a lengthy post to find nuggets of
> objection. Give us one or two objections at a time and lets discuss em
>
>
Go back and read it and then cut and paste what you want ot discuss. Like
this from Horus' orig post:
"Poor Moses, stuck with 3 million complaining Jews for forty years."
This is an example of poor writing, which I don't have a problem with
coming from Chick. But he ought to make it clear -why- they wandered for
forty years. This just makes God look like a crappy navigator. Again, if
he's trying to impress us, this falls short.
I would qualify Chick's words as anti-semitic (those are the ones in
quotes.)
> of what I would expect a just and
> > > > benevolent God to be like. They serve no purpose except to cause
> the
> > > kind of people who make spiritual decisions based on what little
> cartoon
> > > people tell them to do (that is to say, the naive, the foolish, and
> the
> > > > unintelligent) to be more likely to make such a decision out of
> fear of
> > > hellfire rather than a sincere belief in the message of Jesus (a
> message, by the way, for which I hold great respect, although I do
> > not
> believe in the divinity of Jesus nor in the God of the Bible).
> > >
> Helpu
> > > Jesus spoke more about hell than anyone else in the bible.
> Jesus claimed to be God and when they wished to stone him for
> claiming it he
> > > didnt correct them for thinking that he cl;aimed to be God. Jesus
> said the
> > > scriptures were true and testified of Him.
>
> > > Now, to have respect for the message of Jesus which you also believe
> to be a
> > > lie doesnt seem at all consistent. To believe that Jesus was a GOOD
> man but
> > > also believe that He lied about being GOd seems even more inconsistent
>
> > I don't believe he lied. In fact, he said many times that he was not
> God, that the father in Heaven was the father of all men, not just him,
> > and further warned of those around him not to perceive him as acting as
> a god, but only as a man who God has chosen to work through. Jesus
> > seemed fairly consistant about *not* claiming to be a god I think.
>
> Helpu
> if it can be shown to you that He did claim to be God , would that be
enough
> to cause you to believe that He was GOd?
>
>
>
Mike Haubrich
>
> WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote in message
> > Racism:
>
> > <http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1710/1710_01.asp>
> This tract is described as "especially for native american *readers*",
> > but presents a stereotypical portrayal of them, with virtually no
> written words, as if he expects that Indians can't read anyway.
>
>
> Helpu
> you arent kidding are you?
>
> > "You Stupid Jive Turkey!" (Yes, I know it was written in the 70's --
> > but it's still a racist portrayal clearly concocted by a man whose
> > concept of Black culture comes from watching too much Blaxploitation
> > film.)
>
> Helpu
> using the common vanacular is not racist
> if i use a southern accent and that is not my usuall accent that isnt
racist
>
>
> http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0030/0030_01.asp>
> > He actually believes he is living in the end times. That Pope JP II,
> > who has done more than any previous Pope to heal wounds between
> christian denominations and has encouraged peace and democracy in the
> > many nations, is the antichrist. Note that he depicts the story of the
> ark as if it were history rather than a fable.
>
>
> the end times were referred to as the last segment of time in which Jesus
> could return any day. He is correct
>
>
>
>
> > <http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0094/0094_01.asp>
> > More insanity. I can't even begin to describe it. Just read it, and
> > imagine which is more likely -- a secular government declaring
> > christians heretics, or a christian government declaring non-christians
> > heretics?
>
> Helpu
> like that has never happened?
>
>
> > Apparently the true text of the Bible is not the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek
> > compilation from the original writers and copyists, but the King James
> > version -- all other versions are perversions of Satan via the Jesuits.
>
> ok he does go overboard here
>
> <http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0082/0082_01.asp>
> > No one with a sane mind would argue that Catholics do not accept Jesus
> Christ. Chick repeatedly says (even in this same tract) that that is
> > the key to salvation. However, when he gives reasons for rejecting
> Catholics from salvation, what are they? Idolatry is the only coherent
> save the sinner? So apparently, it's NOT enough to accept Jesus into
> > your heart -- you also have to be sure that you do so while going to the
> right church and avoiding certain rituals which can still screw it up
> > for you.
>
> catholics trust in themselves and the church to save them
> i dont think that you know enough of catholic teaching to judge this one
>
>
Why don't you enlighten me about your ignorance of what the Catholics
actually teach. I grew up Catholic, so be careful what you post. I will
catch you in any lies.
>
Mike Haubrich
>
> Adam Noel Harris <ad...@stanford.edu.XX> wrote in message
> news:slrn93ljaa...@elaine11.Stanford.EDU...
> > WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
> In article <91e3jm$fnuu$1...@newssvr06-en0.news.prodigy.com>, "crit"
> > :<joe...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> > :> Helpu I myself dont use tracts but maybe thats because of my own
> > :> pride and fear of being seen by others as foolish
>
> > :> I too will try to defend them despite the attempts at social pressure
>
> > This is fairly scary. I can't imagine that the tracts could be drawn in
a
> > much more egregious, offensive, hateful, or sick manner.
>
> Helpu
> your criticism wont stand up under scrutiny
>
>
> He actually believes he is living in the end times. That Pope JP II,
> > :who has done more than any previous Pope to heal wounds between
> > :christian denominations and has encouraged peace and democracy in the
> many nations, is the antichrist. Note that he depicts the story of the
> > :ark as if it were history rather than a fable.
> >
>
> the POpe and the RCC teach the false gospel of works and people that
teach
> that gospel are teaching lies aqnd leading men from the truth.
You are showing only your anti-Catholic bias and not presenting any
evidence. You calim to defend Chick, yet you have shown nothing in all your
posts so far that are reasonable or even persuasive other thatn anyone that
criticizes him has a bias.
Perhaps because they are immune to the silly tyope of emotional attacks that
Chick makes.
WHen I was ian a Chrisitan Youth Group as a teen our group leader wanted us
to distribute these tracts and I refuesed, even as a Christian because they
were so inflammatory.
>
>
> > I looked at this one. Check out the sinners in the first couple of
> > panels. Crazy.
>
> > Of course, we don't know JP II will be the last Pope, who is the true
> > antichrist, according to Chick. Of course, he _is_ busy negotiating
> > takeovers of all the world's governments.
>
> > We also see a woman apparently being attacked. Is it really evil to
> attack this woman, since she is probably an incestuous, murdering,
> > torturing, homosexual Satan-worshipper? Or maybe there were innocents
> down there. I guess she ended up marrying one of Noah's sons, the only
> > lot who weren't being naughty.
>
>
> Helpu
> are you building ur critique on apparentlies and reading into what may
have
> been happening in the picture?
>
>
> > Also note the baby being held up by his presumably evil mother in a
futile
>
> > attempt to save him (or is she trying to torture him, which would only
be
> > natural for an evil harlot like her). That little sinner probably used
to
> > suckle at his mother's bossom, the incestuous monster!
> >
> > "Paranoid" doesn't even touch Chick's deluded state.
>
>
> Helpu
> are you serious?
crit
Mike Haubrich <tui...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:57K_5.12490$h67.8...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Helpu'
> > you cant expect anyone to sift thru such a lengthy post to find nuggets
of
> > objection. Give us one or two objections at a time and lets discuss em
> Go back and read it and then cut and paste what you want ot discuss. Like
> this from Horus' orig post:
Helpu
why not let him present his best points one by one for clarity's sake?
> "Poor Moses, stuck with 3 million complaining Jews for forty years."
> This is an example of poor writing, which I don't have a problem with
coming from Chick. But he ought to make it clear -why- they wandered for
> forty years. This just makes God look like a crappy navigator. Again, if
he's trying to impress us, this falls short.
Helpu
THe statment just illustrates the truth but not all the truth for that
you'll have to read the Pentatuech
the statement itself honors Moses and rebukes the people. the
complaining/murmuring of the people was also viewed distainfully by God....I
dont see any problem unless one has a personal bias or axe to grind
> I would qualify Chick's words as anti-semitic (those are the ones in
> quotes.)
Helpu
you mean antisemetic against the crowd of Jews that were complaining but not
against Moses the Jew that was trying to lead them? "poor Moses" doesnt
sound like a antisemetic statement to me
Pat James
(in message <91eaap$l3t$1...@uranium.btinternet.com>):
> This group seems to me to be full of people afraid of
> christian belief.
Which group would that be?
>
> Reading the comments made there seem to be very
> few people on this group who are not atheists.
by definition, alt.atheism _is_ where atheists hang out. You _did_ notice
that this is being xposted there, didn't you?
>
> So what is so worrying about those tracts.
I think they're funny.
>
> I had a look and liked the one about Evolution being
> a religion not a science.
it shows where you're coming from, alright.
>
> To me evolution is a getout and people who support
> it are hoping there isn't a God.
amazing. (Looks at long list of churchmen who have worked on evolutionary
theory, sighs. Guess they all didn't think there was a God.)
>
> I'm sure there is............sorry.
you're sorry, alright.
> Dal
>
> Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:91bi0b$ikc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> Go to Chick.com and review the titles available.
>>
>> Anyone who can find even one of these tracts that sounds remotely
>> accurate, legitimate, or anything other than stark raving mad needs
>> serious help. And yet there must be people stupid enough to accept
>> these somehow.
>>
>> If you are one of these, then play devil's advocate and try to defend
>> this lunacy to me.
>>
>> Aron-Ra
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com
>> http://www.deja.com/
>>
>
>
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.