http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1052/1052_01.asp

Has anyone heard of Jack Chick or his work "Birds and the Bees?" I hadn't. I read through it thinking it was a parody of the more ravenous Christian beliefs. When I was done, I had this primal feeling of fear. "What if this work intends to spread a serious message?", I thought in horror. I found a statement regarding this work by the author.

[quote=Jack Chick]After 1965 the Ten Commandments were gone and kids were taught that evolution was true. Across the country, pastors in thousands of churches stopped preaching about God’s fiery judgment. They feared even to mention the word hell – it was the H-word, to be avoided at all costs, lest someone be offended!

So with hardly any opposition, the sodomites and their aggressive gay machine became a force to control politicians, judges, the media and finally our school systems. Their weapon was a single word, tolerance, and all opponents were put to flight.

...

Our television is an open sewer, glorifying the homosexual lifestyle, making the “straights” (non-gays) look like a bunch of idiots.

Satan has the backing of the courts, trying to shut the mouths of God-fearing pastors, who still have the courage to preach about it from the book of Romans, who show what God thinks of homosexuality and what He did to Sodom and Gomorrah. I believe the time will soon come when godless judges will close churches that call being gay a sin.

But what about our children being brainwashed and force-fed the lie that “gay is good?” What can be done to block this gay wave rolling into our classrooms?[/quote]
My favorite panel in this work was this one.



How can anyone read that with a straight face?

.

Damn you Americans are nuts.

This is his best tract:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0034/0034_01.asp

lol, Jack Chick is pretty much a legend. I'm surprised you hadn't heard of him before.

For the record, I was able to read thepanel with a straight face, and even agree with it's message (though I must say that I do agree the delivery's a bit over the top...).

I was referring to the statement, "If anyone tries to make you gay, stay away from them!", as if it's some kind of infectious disease.

Yeah. That's pretty ****ing scary because it doen't work like that.

Yeah. They have to bite you first.

There is some truth for concern, but it is obviously blown out of proportion, and this guy is rediculous. I'd say it's the media thats promoting lifestyles rather than the classroom. As for the education thing, public schools should not have Bible classes. That is why they have Christian schools.

As for the whole gay thing, it is not only wrong via the Bible but I think it is disgusting.

Avenger, can I borrow your ten foot pole? I don't want to dirty mine poking this thread because it will eventually smell of poo and popcorn.

As for the whole eating shrimps thing, it is not only wrong via the Bible but I think it is disgusting. Not really, I love scampi!

Y'see, you're hardly making a good point. Just because something induces disgust in you doesn't make it wrong. Nor does citing the Bible really make a relevant point to anyone but other Christians.

Btw, Jim Pinkoski is another amusing evangelical type comic artist. He's actually loads of fun, complete with attacking evolution with non-sequiturs and drawing pictures of panicking dinosaurs trying to attack the ark and angels coming down and duking it out with them. (Now there's something I'd bring the popcorn for!)

Adam's hot. I'd hit that.

But seriously, Leviticus is a joke. A man can't even lie with another man like he would with a woman, because men don't have vaginas.

Dude, you don't promote a gay lifestyle life the next fashion trend. That's absurd.

Isn't the long lifespan of the characters in the Old Testiment based on a different calender than the modern one we have now?

And you can't spell the word "ridiculous" and therefore it invalidates your point.

JG, how long until "rediculous" gets filtered like it does on SA?

filter "definately" while you're at it

LOL g1
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=ridiculous

How in hell is this being turned into a gay debate?
Goddamn gays! They are ruining the world!...By not actualy... hurting....anybody....
Hmm...

This guy always made me sick to my stomach. Literally.

I also don't understand how some of them think people have shrunk over time. Were they shorter than their parents? Were their parents shorter than their grandparents? Have they never been to a museum of anything over 100 years old, where the average clothing outfit was fit for a man who was 5'2"?

Get 2 of every animal -- except dinosaurs! Obviously they unanimously turned to a gay lifestyle...

Evidence has shown that people were actually significantly shorter than we are today(5.25 feet tall or thereabouts), although there have been large 'giants' unearthed (7-8 feet tall).

And each one of them was named Yao Ming

Jack Chick is my favorite humorist. The fact that he doesn't know he's a humorist worries me not a bit.

That has nothing to do with your previous misspelling: "rediculous"
LOL g1

The "Giants" (Nephelim) were the fallen angels, demons that raped the daughters of men and tainted humanity. Pure humans, according to the bible, are meant to be short.

-So, he's telling us that we need to be demons. Cool.

*steps into thread, looks around, backs away slowly*

and... HAHAHAHA Lewis Siffer.... nice one

If you don't use the Bible as your moral compass, that's your perogative. But that doesn't invalidate his point.

Far as eating shrimp and whatnot, that applied to Jews back then, but it doesn't necessarily apply to us. There's a scripture where God told someone that all animals had been made clean or something.. (You'll have to forgive me for not being more specific or providing the reference. I haven't spent a lot of time studying this issue.) As to why God originally specified that some animals would be unclean is another issue. Many believe that it was a health concern. God told them not to each such animals because those animals carried diseases.

But regardless the reason's uninportant. The codes and laws set forth in the early new testament are exactly that. Laws. They aren't necessarily things that we, thousands of years later, have to worry about. To draw a parrallel, think about all the laws that used to apply in the US even just a couple hundred years ago. There has been posted websites that have some of the humorous laws that were written originally because they fit the times, but don't make sense for our day and age.

The thing with the clean and unclean animals is Acts 10:9-23, for anyone who's interested.

Wow...Unclean animals now? Shrimp un-christan?....
How is it that this religion is a MAJORITY?

The verses referencing clean and unclean animals (as well as most of the rules in Leviticus) are no longer applicable. They were set for the Ancient Hebrews to set them apart from the various other religions at the time (Baal Worship, Egyptian Idolatry, Assyrian Beliefs, etc). The Bible, the apostle Paul, and Jesus H. Christ Himself, put these laws to rest in the New Testament. The Old Testament is no longer the ruling law for Christians (although that doesn't mean that the points it makes are any less valid, it just means that obedience to the stiff rules are no longer required).

People who aren't completely ignorant or intent on making light of Christianity, the Bible, or religion in general can easily understand this.

Careful kids, armenism will make you crazy...

If he's going to say something about homosexuality he should do some research. Though I do hate it when people try to pretend that Christianity and homosexuality are compatible.

Because... the majority don't believe that there are unclean animals?

Sarn, you missed my point. It's never valid to back up a point with "X says so" even if you might personally believe that X is always 100% correct. I doubt you or I would think eating pork is wrong but Jews and Muslims would beg to differ, do you feel that they'd have a valid point if they were condemning you for commiting the sin of eating pork?
If you want to make a valid point use some sort of reasoning behind it to explain it. If F-body had made some sort of point that showed that homosexuality harmed unwilling third parties I'd understand, but instead he says "this book says so", which is fine for Christians as you say and "it disgusts me" which has no validity whatsoever unless that means I too can prove that anything I find disgusting is "wrong" too.

I used the whole shrimp thing in jest; parodying what he said to point out its futility. I'm well aware it doesn't apply to Christians anymore. The whole homosexuality-is-sin thing shouldn't really apply to our times any more either and I don't see where some Christians get off trying to order people to follow their particular religion's views.

What people fail to understand is that trying to get other people to follow one's own views is universal; it's not just Christians. Everyone does it.

People who feel that "we should allow homosexuals" are doing the exact same thing as a Christian, just on the other side.

If I were to say "We should outlaw mohawks" and try to fight them, and you were to say "mohawks should be allowed", are we not both doing the same thing? I try to force everyone to do away with mohawks, and you try to force everyone to allow them.

I thought Steven was a completely new member...Till i read his Subtitle.
I learned something today.

That'd be true if the person was trying to enforce mohawks, but this is not the case, this is arguing for the freedom to have a mohawk if you so choose.

No, because it still requires everyone to accept mohawks. It still forces people to do something they don't want.

This may not necessarily be a bad thing. Speed limits are a good example. I like to go fast. Laws require me to go slowly. Is it good? Probably.

Wow.

Very well, but then we have some reasoning for those speed limits: eg statistical data that shows that higher speeds on roads result in more frequent, deadlier accidents.

Accepting things you don't like is part of living in a community with different people. You cannot expect everyone to follow one particular taste in all things. Surely the default position should be that something is allowable unless it can be shown that it results in undesirable outcomes? Or must everything be banned and then undergo some sort of judiciary to decide whether it ought to be legalised or not?