I think the patient should have played “Puberty Love” to get rid of the angry heart.
Do you perchance live in the Bible Belt, DG?
Not that you would have to, in order to be bombarded. I live in Rochester, NY, and I’ve had them practically thrust in my face downtown. And when I delivered pizzas in the '80’s one customer fisrt tried to give me one as a tip, and then brightened up enough to realize that WITH a real tip might be more effective.
Too late! While I am often unassertive in surprising situations, I had the presence of mind to flatly refuse the first tactic. From there it was easy as … pie… to refuse when the deal was sweetened.
“Pizza Pie” that is!
True Blue Jack
Fang was in it? How did I miss that? Oh, well, back to the old preachin’ site!
True Blue Jack
Jesus Onsup[/sup] Apply directly to soul!
Jesus Onsup[/sup] Apply directly to soul!
Jesus Onsup[/sup] Apply directly to soul!
Maybe it’s hungry.
Everybody has a hungry heart.
[sub]Ain’t nobody like to be alone[/sub]
What are you talking about? Are you confusing me with another poster? I rarely post in chick threads. And didn’t offer any “advice” in the post you quoted, nor have I in the few chick threads I’ve posted in before.
So you have no clue whether my advice on this subject ( if I were to offer it) would be worthless or not,
You’re probably right. I have yet to hear your advice. Why? Perhaps it would be better if you DID lay your cards on the table; and I would not have stuck my neck so far out!
When I was a junior in high school (In 1965-66), one of the works of literature our English teacher had us read (the textbook was issued to us at the start of the school year) was “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” by Jonathan Edwards, from about 1735. This kind of fire-and-brimstone preaching got Edwards fired, which should have been a hint to Jack Chick and his ilk.
I bought, through the mail, an anthology of Chick’s tracts with a rather negative editorial commentary by the compiler, who seems to hate religion in general; and perhaps Jack Chick’s brand of Southern Baptist hellfire preaching in particular. Chck’s philosophy irritates me, but so does the compiler’s I-condemn-all-religion stance.
Owner of a hungry heart!
Much better than the owner of a broken heart!
Is this the first instance of humor in a Chick Track?
I’ve heard NASCAR fans say a lot of hot babes hang out at Daytona, so it might qualify as a Chick Track.
Whether there is humor there, I couldn’t say.
Warning: Pregnant women, the elderly and children under 10 should avoid prolonged exposure to Jesus™.
Caution: Jesus™ may suddenly accelerate to dangerous speeds.
Jesus™ contains a liquid core, which, if exposed due to rupture, should not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
Discontinue use of Jesus™ if any of the following occurs: Itching,
Vertigo, Dizziness, Tingling in extremities, Loss of balance or coordination, Speaking in tongues, Temporary blindness, Erection lasting more than four hours, Profuse sweating, Homophobia, Heart palpitations
If Jesus™ begins to smoke, get away immediately. Seek shelter and cover head.
Jesus™ may stick to certain types of skin.
Do not taunt Jesus™.
Jesus™
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!
(ps…just for context, I’m 47 and a woman).
I see. Well, on this subject, I don’t really have any advice. Just how I feel about christianity in general. It’s my opinion that religion is a very personal thing. It can’t be “adviced” into someone or forced upon them. I believe that to attempt to do so is to achieve the opposite.
I guess that’s why chick irritates me. His isn’t just “fire and brimstone”. It’s taking normal human psychology, such as human sexual responses, or human emotions, and making them into some sort of evil black sin that is supposedly “created” in one’s heart. And it further irritates me that his nonsense could be thought to have any more validity than my aforementioned Springer shows. To me, and imho, they’re THAT idiotic.
I don’t remember any of the 10 commandments being “thou shalt not have any erections upon seeing a pretty girl” or “thou shalt not feel jealous of someone elses’ success”. They are about ACTIONS (and ones which would be harmful to your fellow human), not not normal responses to stimuli.
Now, if the guy who was turned on by a pretty woman, not his wife ACTED upon that, then (imho) he’s committing more than one kind of sin. Same with a person who feels a twinge of envy. Envy can be a GOOD emotion. So, if our action upon feeling envy is to spur our own selves on, that’s postive, and even as a christian I fail to see how that’s a sin. But, if the action is to take from our neighbor, or to dwell upon it to the point of hurting others, again, that’s “sinning” on several different levels.
It is also my opinion that my fellow christians, the psycho fundie ones, put such GREAT store by their so-called purity, and avoidance of these types of sins, is because it’s so much easier for them to condemn someone for their lifestyle choice, the music that they listen to, their clothing and so on, than it is to live by the actual teachings of Jesus.
For instance, however I may or may not feel about homosexuality, there is not a SINGLE solitary request by Jesus, for we as christians to vilify their choice and to persecute them. That’s between them and God. But so many so-called christians make it their mission to hate, even to the point of harming or even in some cases killing gay people.
Hating something icky and different (and which seems to be called out as a sin in the bible) is EVER so much easier than actually loving and helping one’s fellow human.
I find all this violent hateful behaviour to be just further evidence of these fundies’ (like chick’s) psychotic beliefs. They don’t have any problem breaking some of Jesus’ teachings, and the Bible’s laws (thou shalt not kill), as long as they can uphold others (the easy ones, like hating someone because of their “sin” of listening to punk music, or having a beer or two at a picnic).
As far as not following up on the loving and helping one’s fellow humans? I’m just as guilty as the next guy. Running the rat race, busy busy busy. I commit random acts of kindness, but I don’t help nearly as much as I should. I don’t practice fundie madness by hating anyone different. Of course, I still commit the sin of being seriously GRUMPY at some who are different (those who insist upon playing their “bouncin’” stereos as they drive by my house at 3am on a worknight). 
Fair enough. (P.S. for My part, I’m 57…)
I agree that reigion is a personal thing. We have only to see what had happened in Afghanistan about ten years ago (and, conversely, what happened centuries ago in the Levant during the Crusades 
) when religion was imposed on people by coercion. (Compare Joshua 24:14.)
As for the issues of substance abuse and homosexuality, my own position on those things was set long before I ever heard of Jack chick or his tracts. I oppose homosexuality but I would not do anything to disrupt a gay rights event; I oppose the use of recreational drugs (I don’t even drink or smoke) but I don’t take an activist stance with them, either. My opposition to both is purely passive.
Well, then you’re a …(we need a name for us non-psycho fundie christians), a NPFC.
As for me, I’m a recovering baptist. Interesting religion, and IMHO, one of the worst of PFCs. But then, I’ve not belonged to other churches and I’m non-denominational.
Funny thing about baptist’s little rules against what seems like almost everything fun under the sun, is that many of them aren’t actually called out IN the doctrines of the church, just expounded upon as sinful evils via the teachings and preachings thereof.
Sorry, this is a complete hijack, but one of the things that bugs me most about my former church is some of the weird hypocrisy that is practiced with respect to the doctrines and teachings of the church.
Dancing is a sin, (because men might become inflamed with lust, not be able to help themselves and commit adultery. Right, because God designed us so that we have no mental or moral control over our behaviour but are at complete mercy of our hormones :rolleyes: ), but yet if you’ll notice, baptist women make up their faces and outfits to look like whores. Okay, so they don’t all wear mini-skirts, but the overall appearance is very slutty if you ask me.
If they’re so concerned about stifling human sexuality (as the chick tracts seem to emphasize overall) then they should be dressing like nuns and going sans makeup, not worrying that the 2-step is the road that leads to hell.
This makes a lot of sense to me. Sort of a self-reinforcing ploy.
I’ll take your word on that one. I haven’t been around very many Baptist churches.
I have not been on a dance floor, for other reasons which, if I expressed them, would sound somewhat long-winded.
It takes faith. After all, I defy anyone to show me a statement anywhere in the original text that says Mary gave birth while a virgin…damn, translating is a hard business!
Heh, if I were a woman born in the western world in the latter 20th century I would count my lucky stars. Imagine all the other times or places – right now – that you could’ve been born.