There's a new Jack Chick tract, and boy is it a doozy!

The BBQ Pit
241

Vanilla:

Why are you here? I mean here on the Straight Dope message board. You obviously prefer to remain and act ignorant. Is it actually that diffucult for you to learn?

And I don’t subscribe to the Church of Vanilla. (More on this later in this very post.)

You also said that if he doesn’t say he’s a satanist then he’s not a satanist. That’s actually not good logic. I certainly don’t believe Harry, or the author, is satanic. It’s just a child’s story book! It’s fiction.

That’s right. Anyone can say they practice a particular version of a particular religion based on a particular tome.

First: The LDS do not consider their interpretation of the Bible to be 180 degrees in disagreement with it.

Second: You certainly don’t have the ability to do anything to prove that the LDS are wrong. What you have been able to do is spew venom. I don’t recall who suggested it to you, but I got a laugh out of it–not so long ago someone here asked why you didn’t just change your sig line to “All Mormons are going to Hell” or something of the like.

Third: It’s not your decision if someone is a Christian or not. Last I checked, it was God’s decision. Are you God?

Not only incorrect, but utter garbage.

First: Some religions share a book or two with other religions.

[ul][li]Samaritans: Pentateuch[/li][li]Judaism: Pentateuch and rest of the Old Testament[/li][li]Christianity (in general): Pentateuch, rest of Old Testament, and New Testament.[/li][li]Islam: Pentateuch, rest of Old Testament, New Testament, and Koran (this last considered the absolute correct Word of God, not corrupted as, the Muslims believe, by the errors present in the preceding books listed).[/ul][/li]
Then there’s the whole issue of authorative scriptures between the various Mahayana and Therevada Buddhist sects.

Then you certainly are not conversant with the LDS’s take on why the Book of Mormon is correct scripture.

You also seem to be unaware that it is not you who gets to make that determination FoG, er…I mean, vanilla. Unless, of course, you have now founded The Church of Vanilla which has a tenet that those not members of same are not Real Christians[sup]TM[/sup].

There are two very valid reasons why my comment in that thread does not negate my consideration of either of us as Christians.

First: jab1 doesn’t like Christianity in general. You got so wrapped up in being a hateful little snot against the LDS that you forgot to notice that he was also denouncing all religion.

Second: I was obviously using the term “your religion” to mean “your sect of Christianity.” I obviously forgot that when it comes to the LDS you get so wrapped up in being a hateful little snot about it that I forgot I was talking to someone who continues to delight in her ignorance.

Well, evidently you don’t seem able to accept the fact that religion can also mean sect. But then, I don’t belong to the same cult as you do, The Church of Vanilla (Real Christians[sup]TM[/sup]).

242

RedTail- The book I checked does list a footnote mentioning that the literal translation is poisoner. The footnote extrapolates that this was a reference to the practices of priestesses of some other religions. Considering that the worship of Molech included throwing children into large fires(Later, decline in membership caused them to switch to throwing semen into fires.), a priestess whose duties include dispensing toxins is not a stretch.

243

Yes, others certainly have the ability to prove that what Mormons believe and Christians are quite different, in Many ways.
You are just so ignorant about it that you cannot see anyone else viewpoint or points.
Any site which tells why the Mormons believe quite opposite Christianity is viewed as totally biased by you.
Only pro-Mormon sites are considered “fair”.

Heres a good one:
http://www.bible-truth.org/arelds.htm

Also this site has been quite fair and truthful:
http://www.mrm.org/

Why am I here? I learn; others actually may learn from me.!
I am not ignorant, nor a venow spewer. I’ve enver seen so much venom as Mormons towards anyone so much as daring to disagree with them.
Ah well, I’ll leave you to your venomous ignorant, Mont.

I still think Chick is a bit wack.

244

By this, I take it you mean you
[ul]don’t know jack about what you’re talking about and so have taken refuge in the words of others who just so happen to hate Mormons as much, or more.[/ul]

Four things:
[ul][li]Ignorant? I daresay that I probably know a heck of a lot more about the Bible than you do. After all, I actually study the thing on an almost daily basis. (College coursework gets in the way sometimes.)[/li][li]Prior to converting to LDS as an adult, I studied the faith, and the comments of its detractors, and determined that it’s fine for me.[/li][li]I have posted on this board a number of times that I am not blind to the possibility that I am willfully deluding myself. This also applies to anyone else who believes in any religion, IMHO–there is always the possibility that they, I, or even you, is willfully deluding oneself.[/li][li]Given my numerous postings explaining what some of the Islamic, Buddhist, Episcopal, and some other points of view are, I think it’s quite safe to say that I see, but not neccessarily agree, with those points of view.[/ul][/li]

Well, that’s the very definition of bias, isn’t it? The sites you spout…er, link are those with an agenda.

Bullshit. And by making this claim, you paint yourself as a liar. Isn’t telling fibs somewhere in the neighbourhood of 180 degrees away from something?

There is after all Jan Schipps, among others, a non-Mormon who manages to observe and describe the LDS with exactly zero of your inanities.

Oh, this one doesn’t have an agenda? <rollseyes>

In whose opinion? Yours? What a laugh.

Doesn’t show.

Then explain why one of the poaters here, a non-Mormon at that, asked why you didn’t change your sig to what (s)he suggested?

Well, then you evidently didn’t read those links you just provided.

Well, if being informed about my faith and others is my “venomous ignorant,” I think I’m in a pretty safe ballpark.

Do yourself a favour and click on the “show all threads” link and search (you’ll have to do a manual one for it because of its age) for the “responses to bashing” thread. You will see (or probably not, being the ranting individual you’ve been on this issue) that it was smilingjaws, not I, who was venomous on the issue.

But since, apparently by your “standards,” anyone who supports, or just flat out doesn’t despise the LDS as much as you, is ignorant and venmous, you won’t see that.

Honestly, I don’t think he’s whack. I think he’s a cunning, devious, hateful man with an agenda.

Y’all should hang out together.

What really amazes me is the “logic” you use to decry the Potter books and anything else that frightens your little closed mind. My guess is that the poster who feared for your child has that fear because it’s so obvious that you’re closed to the remotest chance that your child will actually learn something of benefit from something you fear through your ignorance.

245

I was unaware of Vanilla’s opinion of LDS’s when I asked the question. It was not an attempt to make her repeat views I had already heard.

   Vanilla-A site by a missionary is biased regardless of its stance on LDS. The missionary has an agenda(convert others to their faith). This is why they are a missionary. The first link you provided is a missionary's attempt to further his agenda by convincing LDS's that they are not True Christians. Step 2 is convincing them that his Christianity is the One True Faith.
     As for your assertions on what I think, if I haven't told you what I think how can you know? I own a copy of the Book Of Mormon. I have read enough to convince me that-
      It is not a cult. It may have started out that way but so did Christianity. For that matter, for much of the Old Testament the Jews are a cult. They are led by someone(Moses, Solomon etc) claiming special powers and divine knowledge.

     The LDS are Christian. Note that many Christians also claim that Catholicism, Anglicanism, and many other Christian sects are not actually Christian.

   The LDS idea of apotheosis (As we are now, God once was. As God is now, we can become.) is in keeping with the teachings of Christ. I believe Jesus said "He who drinks from my mouth *shall be as me, and I shall be he*". Man can become one with the divine. Note also that an apostle also walked on water, until he lost faith.
246

I think the most amusing part is the (apparently) 30 seconds it takes to become saved for life. “I’ve been a fuck-up my entire life… killing, raping, and pillaging the needy for years, but PRAISE THE LORD!”

Jack is an expert… he can get us there in 30 seconds or less, or you get your money back!

BP

247

More like depraved.

248

If I might put in my two cents…

One problem which fundamentalist Christianity faces is their belief that whether or not you spend an eternity of delight or torment is determined by your belief in a checklist of doctrinal trivia. If getting into heaven were dependent on, say, having a healthy relationship with God, then once your kids had that relationship, you wouldn’t have to worry too much about it. But instead, it’s possible for them to change their beliefs in the trivia quite easily, and this puts many FC’s into a fit of anxiety over their loss of control. (This is presumably the reason why teachers at my HS were so eager to scare us away from college- they knew that we would be introduced to foreign ideas there, and it would lure us away from the Checklist of Righteousness.)

So how do FC’s deal with this? Part of their strategy is to define other religions not merely as “wrong” or “false” but as being “cults.” Back when I was in HS, we studied “cults” in Bible class, and “cults” were explicitly defined as all non-Christian religions: Judaism, Islam, etc. including, of course, Mormonism, Christian Science, Jehovah’s Witnesses, WWCOG, etc. To some extent this is due to xenophobia, which is why FC’s often define Hinduism as being a kind of devil-worship (as did the Southern Baptists a couple of years ago,) and more frequently define African religions as being outright Satanism (see, for example, Hal Lindsey’s Satan Is Alive and Well on Planet Earth.) But OTOH, all this talk of buck-naked natives drinking cow’s blood and worshipping a goat is just titillation, since there’s no chance your kids will convert to those religions. Instead, the biggest threat comes from religions which are “almost Christian but not quite,” and which are therefore most likely to gain converts from “real” (ie fundamentalist) Christianity. These, then, were the ones my Bible class focussed on in its study of “cults.”

In fact, in my HS there was a definite implication that “almost-Christian” religions were the most cunning creations of the Devil, who deliberately tried to maximize their ability to draw people away from “real” (ie fundamentalist) Christianity by virtue of the fact that they diverged from the Checklist on only a few points. FC’s draw a circle around themselves, with “real Christians” on the inside and “false religion” on the outside. Some draw it small enough to only encompass their own narrow interpretation, others will accept all conservative Protestantism, and others accept more or less all Protestants and Catholics. But the interesting thing is, FC’s will direct most of their venom and energy towards sects which lie immediately outside the circle. Thus the pastor at http://www.pearlstreet.org is constantly writing tirades against liberal theologian Max Lucado. Jack Chick presents Catholics as leotard-clad supervillains. And vanilla directs her venom against Mormons. Why not rail against Hare Krishnas? Because these people know their kids- and Americans in general- are more likely to convert to Mormonism than to shave their heads and worship some blue guy.

-Ben

249

**

Are you aware that they are generally considered to be the best Christian children’s series ever written?

Suppose your child brings The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe home tomorrow. Would you let him read it? Yes or no?

**

Then what do you read?

**

Narnia: didn’t read them, can’t pass judegement on them.

Harry Potter: didn’t read them, clearly Satanic.

Have I got it straight?

Are you familiar with the character of Merlin? If so, would you let your child read books about King Arthur and Merlin?

-Ben

250

Hal Lindsey is an embarrassment. This asshole was on the local news (NBC4 in Los Angeles) this week telling people that 9/11 was a sign of the coming Apocalypse.

251

Here is a Talk Origins article on “polystrate tree fossils” (a term used by creationists, but not secular geologists). How the trees got that way was determined back in the 19th century, as the article makes clear.

252

Thanks jab1. Making fun of Jack chick is fun and all, and I knew he had to be creating straw men just to knock them down with his strange brand of logic (the main give away was the evolution chart he showed, which is most deicidedly not the chart I remember from school - I mean c’mon Piltdown Man?). Some of the things he claimed I had just never heard of before and was pretty sure Mr. Chick was doing the same sort of thing with his other arguments as he did with the evolution chart.

And I love this line from the site:

So even when Creationism was more commonly accepted, they already had a scientific explanation for this!

As Jack chick would write, “Haw haw haw!”

for the next Jack Chick tract, we should open two threads, one to make fun of the Crazy Crusader and one to present the other side of the argument that Chick always seems to leave out.

253

FWIW, I read the Bible Truth site-and Vanilla, can I say I found it extremely offensive?

It had a link to one of my “favorite” fundie sites: http://www.wayoflife.org

The kind of people who say Roman Catholicism is a cult, that women with short hair are sinning, and that we must wear “modest” dress because otherwise we tempt men into sinful acts.
riiiiight.

:rolleyes:

254

That looks like a parody from MAD magazine.

255

Oh, and the Bible Truth site also called oral sex “sodomy”…

Credibility: deBUNKED!!!

256

Chick tracts are published in many languages. Here’s the Japanese version of the anti-evolution “Big Daddy.” Compare it to the English version. Now, I cannot read Japanese, but I do know that it is read from right to left, which means that the panels should have been flipped. (Click on both links and compare.)

Glad to have helped, Crunchy.

257

Jab,

Actually, you can find lots of stuff in Japan published with Japanese read from left to right.

258

Jab,

Actually, you can find lots of stuff in Japan published with Japanese read from left to right, with new lines immediatley beneath the previous line.

If your computer supports Japanese script, check out http://www.asahi.com. That’s the website for the daily newspaper, Asahi. The print version, though, is written in the traditional manner, top to bottom, with new lines to the left of the previous line.

259

Guin:

I really found this comment (bolding by Monty)

on the Way of Life website to be quite telling. Kind of pisses on the whole “judge not” thing, doesn’t it?

260

I don’t know if you can find it, but in the articles, he freely admits that it’s OKAY to judge, that that passage is taken out of context or something. That you HAVE to JUDGE everyone.

:rolleyes: