• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Chick Tracts

TubbaBlubba said:
And converting someone over the amount of nails in Jesus' hands? What if they struck two nails through both his hands?
Click to expand...

I like how he says the Bible says the sign was above Jesus's head, so Jesus could not have been crucified with his hands over his head. However, the drawing demonstrating the "hands over head" crucifixion has the sign above the hands (so also above the head).

Logic, much?
 
BardKesnit said:
I like how he says the Bible says the sign was above Jesus's head, so Jesus could not have been crucified with his hands over his head. However, the drawing demonstrating the "hands over head" crucifixion has the sign above the hands (so also above the head).

Logic, much?
Click to expand...

Maybe the Romans were big on efficiency and nailed the sign to the cross and his hands together? :D
"Hey Jesus, hold this sign for me, will you?"
 
The nails could not have gone though a person's hands. If they were put there the person would have been able to remove his hand from the cross. The nails would have to go though the wrist. This is one area where the bible is wrong.
 
Craig B said:
The utter immorality of Chick's doctrine practically defies belief. People are saved or fry in hell quite regardless of their thoughts or deeds. They either believe in Jesus and are saved, or they don't, and fry. It's revolting, but regrettably familiar as a traditionalist doctrine. How it could have taken hold on so many minds baffles me.
Click to expand...

And that's going to be the attitude of Muslim readers of this. The Muslim character has tried to live a good life but then is burned literally and metaphorically by God. The audience for this is surely Christians who dislike those dirty Muslims and get to feel smug about his going to hell.
 
rjh01 said:
The nails could not have gone though a person's hands. If they were put there the person would have been able to remove his hand from the cross. The nails would have to go though the wrist. This is one area where the bible is wrong.
Click to expand...

The one area?
 
blutoski said:
Meh. That's pretty common. I remember the moment I realized it was pointless to debate doorknocking JWs... they have no ability to consider themselves possibly wrong.
Click to expand...


That's true but what makes it so sad is when they're related. My uncles family have been JW since before I was born and they're great people to talk to. I can tell they're digging way deep to not bring up or bring out the good news. Since they consider us black sheep anyway :mad: there's little contact at all with them.
 
Chick's tracts probably don't convert many people; but they don't have to in order to make Chick's business successful. His customers are old Christians, not new ones.

The point of the tracts is evangelism. Fundamentalists place a great deal of importance on "witnessing" - telling other people the truth about Jesus as they see it - as a chief responsibility of being a Christian, second only to the belief in Jesus itself. It's one of Jesus' own "marching orders", given after his resurrection but before his ascension.

For people who cannot go door to door, or simply in order to "witness" to more people than one could have a personal discussion with, the tracts can be left wherever, or given to people one briefly encounters. Churches go through stacks of them quite quickly. There is no way to directly measure their effectiveness; but to the people who use them it's the fact of having "witnessed" that's important.
 
Woolgatherer said:
That's true but what makes it so sad is when they're related. My uncles family have been JW since before I was born and they're great people to talk to. I can tell they're digging way deep to not bring up or bring out the good news. Since they consider us black sheep anyway :mad: there's little contact at all with them.
Click to expand...

Just drop by their house, knock on their door and explain to them why they're wrong.
I'm sure that they wouldn't be hypocritical enough to turn you away...
 
I shall pray for you

deadrose said:
...I've often thought it would be fun to buy a bundle at the local Christian bookstore that stocks them, undo the staples, and do a careful partial revision before loosing them on the world. Just a few little changes :D
Click to expand...

You are an evil, wrong, unChristian person with no kind feelings whatsoever for poor, devoted, striving Mr. Chick.

Yes, I shall pray for you, and for the success of your quite brilliant tactic. Please PM me if I can help with the graphics. Or, alternatively, I can bring cookies to pasteup night.
 
The problem with buying a bundle of tracts, or anything, is that then they know you exist.

I would like to get a copy of a certain poster on Chick's website, the one that shows angels tossing people off a cliff. I'm not religious, but the art really speaks to me. But I don't want to end up on their mailing list.
 
rjh01 said:
The nails could not have gone though a person's hands. If they were put there the person would have been able to remove his hand from the cross. The nails would have to go though the wrist. This is one area where the bible is wrong.
Click to expand...

Maybe maybe not. They weren't using what we would consider as nails, they used spikes and I'd like to see you consciously pull your hand through that.

Nevertheless, I thought the prevailing wisdom was that even if the nails held, the hand isn't strong enough to support the body (so I assume the nails would tear there way through the crucified person's hand) which is why the wrist is generally thought to be used although since they crucified a lot of people, we should have more info on this.
I looked in my KJ Bible.
Mathew doesn't say where the nails were.
Mark doesn't say where the nails were.
Luke doesn't say where the nails were.
John doesn't say where the nails were.
However, in John 27, Doubting Thomas put his hands in the holes in his hand and the wound in Jesus' side.

Even though I'm a Christian, one thing has always bothered me. In the first three Gospels, the writers refer to their names, in John's Gospel, he refers to himself as the Apostle Jesus loved most.
 
ljohnson said:
Even though I'm a Christian, one thing has always bothered me. In the first three Gospels, the writers refer to their names, in John's Gospel, he refers to himself as the Apostle Jesus loved most.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you - and maybe this should be another thread entirely - but other than in their titles, where do the synoptics identify their authors?

But if you're looking for differences between John and the Synoptics - well, there's a whole lot of them.

Edit: I'm talking about the Gospel of John, and this is my 316th post. Holy holy hell, if I were into signs and numerology that would just push me over the edge!
 
Last edited:
poblob14 said:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you - and maybe this should be another thread entirely - but other than in their titles, where do the synoptics identify their authors?

But if you're looking for differences between John and the Synoptics - well, there's a whole lot of them.

Edit: I'm talking about the Gospel of John, and this is my 316th post. Holy holy hell, if I were into signs and numerology that would just push me over the edge!
Click to expand...

You're correct, the titles come from the chapter headings and the headings also have the intended audience as well. I know that John is different than the three synoptic Gospels, I just think it's weird that he refers to himself as the Apostle Jesus loves most.

Reminds me of the Seinfeld where the guy always spoke in third person which rubbed off on George. George is getting angry!
 
ApostateltsopA said:
This is a shameless case of pots and kettles. You just distilled a myriad of diverse beliefs, basically one for every believer, into a sad parody of your imagination. (Strawman) Lots of religious people will be quick to tell you all the religions are onto something. Don't dehumanize people like this. It is a bad thing to do.
Click to expand...


You mean superstitious religious people don't suck out loud? My bad. I apologize to all those superstitious religious people whose feelings I hurt without meaning to.
 
poblob14 said:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you - and maybe this should be another thread entirely - but other than in their titles, where do the synoptics identify their authors?

But if you're looking for differences between John and the Synoptics - well, there's a whole lot of them.

Edit: I'm talking about the Gospel of John, and this is my 316th post. Holy holy hell, if I were into signs and numerology that would just push me over the edge!
Click to expand...


You weigh as much as a duck . . .
 
John Jones said:
You weigh as much as a duck . . .
Click to expand...
It's a fair cop.

ljohnson said:
You're correct, the titles come from the chapter headings and the headings also have the intended audience as well. I know that John is different than the three synoptic Gospels, I just think it's weird that he refers to himself as the Apostle Jesus loves most.

Reminds me of the Seinfeld where the guy always spoke in third person which rubbed off on George. George is getting angry!
Click to expand...
I always thought that was strange too. It's never used until the Last Supper, and only five times total(plus the little "heh, heh, it was me all along" bit at the end).

But then, all of GJohn is weird. The Jesus of John is like another person entirely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom