A Chick double features

[farmermike]

Karen again

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

 

[AtheistArchon]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[rebecca]

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

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

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

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

 

[farmermike]

Atheist Archon

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

 

[farmermike]

rebecca

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

 

[rebecca]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Phil]

[derail]

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

Good question, Rebecca.

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

The creationists are sure they were made in God's image. But wait, it appears not all are happy with that image:

. . . if I had invented God I'd get rid of all the parts that challenge my right to self determination. . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[/derail]

 

[Piscivore]

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

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

 

[Temporal Renegade]

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

YARRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!

 

[An Infinite Ocean]

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

I don't think I'll ever understand why Jesus needed to die for my sins. What's that all about? Is god really so warped that he requires blood sacrifice? Is he so savage that he cannot forgive his own creations until his son has been brutally killed? I think most Christians spew this nonsense forth without actually bothering to think why Jesus may have needed to die in the first place.

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

 

[evildave]

YARRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!

Isn't that more a pirate cyborg?

 

[LostAngeles]

Re: chick stuff

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

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

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

Jack Chick is for real. Every so often I find his tracts on the bus. I'm planning on starting a collection of his idiocy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Suezoled]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that is just Leviticus, mind you.

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

 

[Ratman_tf]

Re: rebecca

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

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

Doesn't seem that unchanging to me.

*Edit*

Blah. Slow on the draw again.

 

[Temporal Renegade]

Isn't that more a pirate cyborg?

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

 

[Suezoled]

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

Can we still say "arrrggghhhh!"?

 

[farmermike]

Chick stuff

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

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

 

[rebecca]

Re: Chick stuff

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

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

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

Rebecca-I don't think that God made a mistake in making me. I was alluding to the struggle to subjugate my desires to God's-granted I'm pretty good at doing my own thing anyway, (not something I'm proud of).
But back to the heart of the matter a la C.S. Lewis. . . . (snipped)

Quoting others to illustrate your point is one thing. Reproducing an entire essay is another. I'm not in a discussion with Lewis, I'm in a discussion with you, and accordingly, I'd like to know what you think of things.

 

[Suezoled]

Re: Chick stuff

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

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

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

If a human mind were ruled by reason I really wonder if you'd believe in something as supernatural as a god.

(major snippage)

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

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

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

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

 

[farmermike]

Suezoled

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

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

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