I liked the cat chasing the mutt.     : )

And pawing at the festering boot cast.

Gonna have to try that around here...

And pawing at the festering boot cast.

He was only affectionately using it as a scratching post.

I feel obliged to defend the playfulness of the endearing star of this tract.

I haven't seen any articles about the Chick shop in some years. I know reading about their circulation and sales was interesting in where and what numbers went around the world. Chick's reach is somewhat longer than most people know.

MORAL: Preach to inanimate objects and crotchety old men will convert. Gonna have to try that around here...

Once again bro you unveil my strategy. :)

Moving away from the adorable cat who stole the whole show, I thought this Chick tract was a little heavier on scripture quotes than most. Our intrepid young preacher obviously had a good memory for bible quotes.

That Sunday school teacher must be something else! :) Romans Road all the way!

Romans Road all the way!

I thought the same when I first looked at those consecutive Romans quotes he started with but I think the full Romans Road is considered to have other passages, all exclusively from Romans. The verses from other books are no doubt classic and very familiar for Chick's tracts or lots of sermons but this was not a pure Romans Road example even if the tract started with Romans. OTOH, it's not like Chick's target audience is Bible literate. He's fishing for real converts.

I liked the cat chasing the mutt. : )

I liked the part where Chick went to confession.

I didn't see any panels here with a priest.

Not even of the "Order of Melchizedek"? : )

I didn't see any panels here with a priest.

He didn't need to confess converting to Catholic since it's not a sin.

Melchizedek is a little obscure to get mentioned in a Chick tract.

Perhaps, but hey, aren't all Christians supposed to be "priests by the order of Melchizedek" through Christ, or something?

About three doses of that, and I was through with it. It was an attempt to cripple me and leave me beating myself senseless with a neurotic whip. I got the hell out.

7 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, first being translated “king of righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, meaning “king of peace,” 3 without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.

4 Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils. 5 And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of Abraham; 6 but he whose genealogy is not derived from them received tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7 Now beyond all contradiction the lesser is blessed by the better. 8 Here mortal men receive tithes, but there he receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives. 9 Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. 13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.

14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest 16 who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment, but according to the power of an endless life. 17 For He testifies:

“You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” 18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, 19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

20 And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath 21 (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him:

“The Lord has sworn And will not relent, ‘You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek’”), 22 by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.

23 Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing. 24 But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.

Why does anyone think this sort of thing is beneficial to Christianity? Christ did not send us to thrust a pamplet into someone's hand. We are called by our example to demonstrate the love of God

Why can't we do both?

As long as the boy is ministering the word of Jesus, is he not a priest through Jesus' priesthood?

How could Jack Chick possibly disagree with me (until he found out I was a Catholic anyway)?

As long as the boy is ministering the word of Jesus,

The boy in the pamplet is a fictional character, that is what I was getting at, you are confused if you think a fictional character can be a priest

The boy in the pamplet is a fictional character, that is what I was getting at, you are confused if you think a fictional character can be a priest

Sourpuss.

MORAL: Preach to inanimate objects and crotchety old men will convert.

I thought the moral was, ""practice-makes-perfect." The kid seemed to be rehearsing a sermon. Those "creatures" were his "audience."

Back when I was studying for the ministry I use to go to the park in Portland at lunch time and preach to the pigeons, squirrels and ducks.

Would they ever return for your following sermons? Or did you bribe your audience with bread scraps ;-)

Melchizedek is a little obscure to get mentioned in a Chick tract.

"Melchizedek."

WHO??

:-)

He’s talking to dolls. IDOLATRY!

Now I'm laughing...

Mr.Chick can stick his kindergartin cartoons up his ass.

He'll have to do it in Heaven now. Mr. Chick has gone to his Eternal Home.

I went to Sunday school briefly in my youth. It was the most repulsive and morbid system of guilt inducing mmythological propganda imaginable.

I was beat over the head constantly how Jesus died for my sins and that I should feel guilty about it. I wouldn't even be born yet for close to 2,000 thousand years. Yet I was somehow guilty...

Interesting perspective. I felt pretty much the same way; I wondered why *I* was being indicted for a "sin" *I* hadn't committed...

....Until something clicked, the light-bulb went off, and I fully understood the context. I believe I was about age 21.

As to "mythical," the word is defined either as:

1) "Allegorical"
2) "False or fictitious" an "over-exaggeration"
3) "Traditional historical story which explaining a natural or social phenomenon."

The Bible has been proven to cite actual and factual historical people, places, events, AND date accurately -- WITH corroborative evidence and eyewitnesses.

IF one dismisses the Bible as a source of "history," you may as well dismiss most or ALL sources of "history" for the last 2000 or more years.

Oddly, one could make the case that there is MORE corroborative, true Biblical evidence of events presented and preserved...than by our contemporary Media (which indeed report lies and "myth.")

I like the bird on the bench's reaction to the kid's practice-preaching (which mirrors gramps.)

That's a doll. All of those dolls look psychotic. Or maybe the artist wasn't good at drawing toys. What boy (or girl) would have toys like that? Well, unless their parents hated them.

"Melchizedek."

Vic is just trying to lure us in.

That's a doll.

OR, "stuffed animal." (Are dolls or stuffed animals considered "toys"?)

All of those dolls look psychotic. Or maybe the artist wasn't good at drawing toys.

Heh -- true. I guess they represent "Gramps"and those hostile to The Word.

Why does anyone think this sort of thing is beneficial to Christianity? Christ did not send us to thrust a pamplet into someone's hand. We are called by our example to demonstrate the love of God

Why can't we do both?

Amen.

I would submit that ANY way The Word of God and Gospel message can somehow find its way to someone is a beneficial thing. After all, wouldn't you try and save someone who is not aware that they are about to walk off the edge of a cliff?

What boy (or girl) would have toys like that?

SATANIC ones!

(Cue the Church Lady.)

Vic is just trying to lure us in.

"Come into my parlor," said the spider to the fly...

"Melchizedek."

Gesundheit!

I was beat over the head constantly how Jesus died for my sins and that I should feel guilty about it. I wouldn't even be born yet for close to 2,000 thousand years. Yet I was somehow guilty...

Interesting perspective. I felt pretty much the same way; I wondered why *I* was being indicted for a "sin" *I* hadn't committed...

....Until something clicked, the light-bulb went off, and I fully understood the context. I believe I was about age 21.

You should have stayed with it instead of letting the superstition obsessed bastards wear you down.

What boy (or girl) would have toys like that?

SATANIC ones!

(Cue the Church Lady.)

Uh-oh. Vic's on a roll!

Touche!

"Melchizedek." (Gesundheit!)

"Melchizedek!!" series of sneezes x3...

(Can you do it aloud?)

You should have stayed with it instead of letting the superstition obsessed bastards wear you down.

How can one be "worn down" by The Truth?

You know Robert -- it's often taken many a Believer several years to sort through obstructions, barriers, half-truths, and propaganda to finally reveal The Truth. Our biggest obstruction to truths are often our own obstinate ego.

It's similar to a young person sorting out whether it's the Dems or Republicans who actually represent freedom, America's best interests, or the US Constitution. Many people have discovered late in life that they'd been deceived by the Democrat Party and Leftist Media -- especially in recent years.

Back to our discussion -- it's been the Deniers and Detractors of historically proven corroborated scriptural facts and testimony who have been "worn down"...by a steady torrent of lies and ignorance; The victims, their faith and logic held captive and removed via "Stockholm Syndrome" re-programming.

This technique of gaslighting Bible truths, of actual history and of people with un-developed faith is very similar to that used by Democrats/Marxists on HS or college-age kids. The Leftist Media brainwashes them or the uninitiated in much the same manner.

We both know those agenda-driven institutions frame, manipulate, and falsify the data in order to take full advantage of their prey -- a Captive Audience. Many never recover.

Many of the weak-minded and indifferent to the truth are never able to shake their indoctrination, whether political or in the realm of faith. Only the strong, the informed, or those committed to The Truth break free. Better late than never.

Many of the weak-minded and indifferent to the truth are never able to shake their indoctrination, whether political or in the realm of faith.

Really? So explain how Jesus was born. Hint: according to Christian doctrine, he was not born of the flesh like all others. While you are at it ... he died in the flesh, crucified on a cross. Explain why God required this unnatural occurrence to convince you to abandon reason of and about the world around yourself.

Only the strong, the informed, or those committed to The Truth break free. Better late than never.

So explain how Jesus was born.

Hint: according to Christian doctrine, he was not born of the flesh like all others. While you are at it ... he died in the flesh, crucified on a cross.

Uh, yes, Jesus WAS born "of the flesh." He was a Man. God in the flesh. And THAT is exactly what the Bible teaches.

Only the strong, the informed, or those committed to The Truth break free. Better late than never.

Yeah, kinda like a Chick cartoon.

Or, like some poster opinions at LF.

Explain why God required this unnatural occurrence...

It was and remains a SUPER "natural" occurrence. Just like Our Creator. And the miracle of our very existence since Genesis 1:1.

Do you not actually know exactly why God-in-the Flesh was required to come?

OR...do you believe only in this Physical World?

Since my body and mind are tied to "only to this Physical World" I must say, "YES."

But where is there any supportive objective evidence of the questions I placed in my earlier post? It is all dogma, superstition, gossip and hearsay.

Do you not actually know exactly why God-in-the Flesh was required to come?

I'm pretty sure that I do. The reason was, that the early Christians borrowed from Greek and Roman mythology: the idea of SUPER_HEROES in the flesh.

It was the same ol' story line, meeting a different culture; that is all.

Wouldn't that necessarily discount the existence of God or a Creator?

If there exists just a single instance of supernatural event, a miracle, or metaphysical entities (Ghosts, Demons, ESP, Divining, etc), it blows up the entire "Physical Realm Only" theory.

Where is there any supportive objective evidence of the questions I placed in my earlier post? It is all dogma, superstition, gossip and hearsay.

Specifically???

The reason was, that the early Christians borrowed from Greek and Roman mythology: the idea of SUPER_HEROES in the flesh.

It was the same ol' story line, meeting a different culture; that is all.

NOT remotely the same story-line as Greek/Roman myth/legend (although down that rabbit hole is far more to see.)

Conspicuously you are also discounting the eyewitness historical and factual accounts of the Apostles.

It is all dogma, superstition, gossip and hearsay.

Multiple witnesses; Far more than of most "history."

NONE of Mark, Matthew, Luke or John...OR Paul has ever been proven to be untrue or historically un-factual.

How do you explain this??