A Chick double features

[Abdul Alhazred]

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

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

Can anyone help?

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

 

[Temporal Renegade]

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

Yes, thank you!

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

The hunt is on! Thanks again!

 

[farmermike]

Re: Re: chick stuff

Just noticed this post, sorry for the late response.

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

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

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

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

 

[farmermike]

Re: Re: chick stuff

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

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

 

[Lord Emsworth]

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

Choose based on fear.


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

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

So all in all your question is a bit unfair.

 

[Suezoled]

Re: Re: Re: chick stuff

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

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

 

[Yahweh]

Re: Re: Re: chick stuff

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

I think Lord Emsworth has nailed exactly the reason why Pascal's Wager is meaningless in reality.

 

[farmermike]

Choose based on fear.


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

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

So all in all your question is a bit unfair.

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

 

[Suezoled]

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

Oh wow.
farmermike, meet CFLarsen.

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

 

[Yahweh]

1) As I see it (and I know this is an opinion), there is a choice for or against God as revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. What do you make of a carpenter from a backwater in Judea, two thousand years ago, changing the course of human history? Jerusalem was not exactly the welcoming kind of place you would have expected a legend to take root.

There is no "choice" for or against God. Sure, people possess the ability to make decisions at their own accord, but that does not extend to the ability to consciously choose your own inner-convictions like flipping a toggle switch on a wall.

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

2)I agree. A lot of belief systems can be ruled out but ultimately no one can prove a negative-that God doesn't exist. A look at the intricacies of our world/universe would seem to suggest a creator.

It is very easy to prove God doesnt exist, all it takes is to define him. Lets say you define God as being infinitely powerful and infinitely almighty, then you ask him to make a rock so big he that even he couldnt lift it... oops, if God cant perform that task, then he is not almighty, therefore he doesnt exist, but if he can perform that task then he is not infinitely powerful and again he doesnt exist. By this point, people redefine God (or really they define a new God) with a modified set of characteristics.

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

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

Emsworth is not referring to persecution by humans, he is referring to the wrath of God to be suffered if you accept belief in him.

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

4) Why shouldn't a decision of such magnitude carry any consequences when all my other day-to-day options do? Would God have nailed his Son to the cross for my sins if it didn't?

To the first question: You dont have a decision, your beliefs are merely a product of your environment.

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

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

"Fear" and "humbling" are rather opposing words, are they not?


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

 

[Lord Emsworth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Edited for formatting

 

[farmermike]

Oh wow.
farmermike, meet CFLarsen.

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

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

 

[farmermike]

Jesus didn't exist

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

 

[Lord Emsworth]

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

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

 

[rebecca]

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

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

 

[Suezoled]

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

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

 

[Polux]

Re: chick stuff

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

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

 

[Martin]

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

This is the concept that lead to the rather interesting thread title 'Jesus had a really bad weekend for your sins' on another board.

 

[geni]

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

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

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

 

[farmermike]

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

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