Tom: Don’t be puzzled. My reply wasn’t useles. Joel wants it to be useless so he could post a jerkish comment in the wrong forum.
Actually, Chick does answer e-mails to him. (or, one of his employees does, it’s more correct to say. I’ve e-mailed him in the past and gotten an answer.)
[Cameron Frye]
Jack Chick, you’re my hero!
[/Cameron Frye]
From the Web site: “He’s an excellent artist for the most part.”
Talk about being fractally wrong; the man can’t draw to save his soul.
I’m totally hijacking this thread, but since it was brought up:
Boy, that’d be a long thread, since you’d get a million distinct viewpoints for each question.
Well, the mythology is complex and conflicting. I have seen stories where Vishnu appears to be more powerfful than Shiva and vice-versa. As to Kali, I have seen her referred to as a “shakti” which is the manifestation of the power of a god. If she is invoked to carry a certain aspect of a god’s power, than she could be quite powerful indeed.
People who traditionally worshipped a particular god usually have mythologies in which their god is the most powerful, so it is presumable that Kali worshippers would view Kali as being more powerful than Shiva. However, this would be out of the view of most of the Hindu mythological stories.
Sanskrit is a complex language, and sometimes the translations miss things, although from my readings of the Mahabharata (which includes the Baghavad Gita), this may not be a completely off interpretation. I can make the argument, though, that traditionally in Hindu learning culture, one is not supposed to question a teacher in the sense of being disrespectful or argumentative, but not in the sense of some sort of blind obedience. However, given several stories in the Mahabharta, I’m hard pressed to make that argument in this case.
However, the Baghavad Gita is not the only Hindu text, nor does it hold the only viewpoint in Hinduism. If you are limiting your study of Hinduism to part of the Baghavad Gita, then that would be like limiting your study of Christanity to one section of the Old Testament.
End of the hijack. As for the OP, Jack Chick seems to be a literalist, so why would he put anything in there that he didn’t believe?
Ooh – does that mean that in Party Girl, Jack Chick really believes that Satan puts poison in peoples’ drinks in person?
Yes. Or at least it makes my world just a little more amusing to believe he does.
In Jack Chick’s Big Daddy tract, he claims that atomic nuclei are not held together by the strong nuclear force; instead, they’re held together by God’s will. If that is true, it means that God is the power source behind nuclear weapons. I wonder if Jack would let us store barrels of the most holy nuclear waste at his church.
Well, hell, the Feds are forcing it on Nevada, shouldn’t be too much trouble to get Chick’s church turned into a nuclear waste storage facility.
Hah! So every time we’ve detonated a nuke, we were showing that our power is greater than god’s will! Take that, god!
Shhhh… God still has an inferiority complex over the fact that he’s powerless against iron chariots.
And his argument as to why nuclei aren’t held together by the strong nuclear force is a hoot in itself. “No one has seen gluons, therefore gluons don’t exist, therefore your entire model of the nucleus is wrong, therefore God did it.”