One of the worst chick tracts ever

[Huggy Bear]

Whether or not you think it's possible isn't the issue, the issue is that somehow you guys came to the conclusion that the 'Lisa' tract is offensive based on nothing...

This guy utterly destroys his daughter, mentally and physically, and gets away with it because he's "saved" now, and you call this nothing?  She is depicted as a pre-pubescent child . . . she probably has internal injury.  On top of the horror of multiple gang-rape before the age of 10, where the primary torturer was her FATHER, she has no where else to turn.  Because her Mother is abusing her as well.  It would take years of careful, gentle family therapy with the Mother to repair that relationship, and years of therapy to work through her horror, pain, and betrayal of the rapes.  No amount of therapy could ever justify putting her in the same room with her monster father again.  And you say this is nothing???  Just how huge of an amoral asshole are you?

It's called a work of fiction...

You act as if Chick is condoning child abuse. The whole point of the story is to speak to an abuser and maybe get him to stop what he's doing. I like how you guys sit on the sideline and criticize, but tell me what exactly you're doing to try and solve the problem?

I might add that you were the one celebrating over the guys death, so you have no business trying to get on any moral high horse.

Jack Chick is dead!  Woo-hoo

Amoral asshole indeed...

[ukatheist]

It's called a work of fiction...

You act as if Chick is condoning child abuse. The whole point of the story is to speak to an abuser and maybe get him to stop what he's doing.

I'm astounded that you don't find it offensive Huggy, the whole narrative is entirely concerned with the 'soul' of the father, and not one moment of compassion is shown towards the victim. Hardly shows christianity in a positive light, regardless of the message you say it is trying to get across. Unless you believe that saving the soul of the father is more important than the needs of the victim, and more important than the legal responsibilities of the doctor?

You've always struck me as basically a decent person despite your beliefs, surely you don't think that this is a reasonable attitude for xtians to take?

[Homeless Nutter]

I'm astounded that you don't find it offensive Huggy, the whole narrative is entirely concerned with the 'soul' of the father, and not one moment of compassion is shown towards the victim.[...]

Christians don't give two sh*ts about victims. They just want to suck up to their sky-daddy and make sure nobody openly talks about the dark sides of their nature. As the bible says - "Snitches get stitches".

And hey - the little girl was probably dressing slutty, so f*ck her (in a manner of speaking), the little c*ck-tease.

[ukatheist]

I'm astounded that you don't find it offensive Huggy, the whole narrative is entirely concerned with the 'soul' of the father, and not one moment of compassion is shown towards the victim.[...]

Christians don't give two sh*ts about victims. They just want to suck up to their sky-daddy and make sure nobody openly talks about the dark sides of their nature. As the bible says - "Snitches get stitches".

And hey - the little girl was probably dressing slutty, so f*ck her (in a manner of speaking), the little c*ck-tease.

Yeah, there are some xtian posters here that I would have expected to take that attitude, but Huggy wasn't one of them, and that is why I was surprised he didn't find it offensive.

For example, if I was xtian I'd be offended by your post Nutter and be quick to point out that while undoubtedly some people might think that way, it wouldn't be representative of the majority of (non fundie) xtians, rather than defend the view as if it were correct or justified.

Don't know whether its just because Chick is a xtian himself that Huggy has defended it, or whether he actually agrees with the sentiments expressed.

[Homeless Nutter]

Yeah, there are some xtian posters here that I would have expected to take that attitude, but Huggy wasn't one of them, and that is why I was surprised he didn't find it offensive.

For example, if I was xtian I'd be offended by your post Nutter and be quick to point out that while undoubtedly some people might think that way, it wouldn't be representative of the majority of (non fundie) xtians, rather than defend the view as if it were correct or justified.[...]

Christians may be offended all they want, but they can't deny, that - according to their world-view - the party most unjustly harmed by something like child-rape is Jesus/god, who's alleged laws have been broken. That's why a rapist, or murderer, who repents can still go to heaven, according to pretty much all christian interpretations - because once you're square with sky-daddy, it's all fine. And that's why they -also pretty universally - can't accept, or often even tolerate things, that harm nobody, but which - according to their doctrines - might upset god. Like consensual homosexuality.

The concern for the actual victim is secondary at best, because humans, due to being sinful and imperfect by nature, deserve to be tormented here, on Earth and even for eternity in hell. In fact - the more unjustly harmed someone is in this life, the better their prospects for a nice slice of the post mortem sky-cake - just look at all the saints and martyrs.

Sure - most christians find ways, to rationalize the whole thing, or just refrain from thinking about it, but at the end of the day - their imaginary friend (who's basically an aggrandized version of themselves) is the most important thing in their lives. More important than any human - even their loved ones. More important than society. More important than the entire world.

I don't know, if it's because sky-daddy promised them everlasting lives, or because they enjoy the narrative of being the omnipotent creator's of the Universe favorite pets, more than that of being evolved apes, who have to figure out their own way of living. But even if they're civil about it - we shouldn't forget, that they can't wait for the world to be destroyed and people they don't like to be cast into the lake of fire.

[vorlon13]

Lisa also shares culpability via original sin.

[Doubting Thomas]

My favorite is the one with the little kid saying "I AM GOD" with a crazy-eyes face.  Let me see if I can find it.

EDIT: My quote was a bit off, still funny though.

That's such a fucking bad straw man I can't stand it.  The entire Chick organization is crazy.

[Doubting Thomas]

You act as if Chick is condoning child abuse.

No, what he's condoning is not bringing child abusers to justice and sweeping their crimes under the rug as long as they remain Christians, which in my opinion is just as bad as condoning child abuse.  Because in real life, child abusers and rapists don't just stop once they pretend to accept Jesus as their personal savior.  If anything, they think that they can do no wrong because they're forgiven.
FFS, look at how many Christian pastors and priests have sexually abused children.

[Doubting Thomas]

Lisa also shares culpability via original sin.

That in itself is a reprehensible doctrine, seeing as how God set up the system where everybody goes to Hell by default unless they accept his son as savior.

[vorlon13]

Take it up with his followers.

I find the policy odious, but amongst the Christian community, it's a litmus test of acceptance into the club.