I am so glad you are able to find joy in other peoples death. makes life worth living....

For a second I thought that said "Chick Hearn" but he died fourteen years ago.

The only people who reveled in that were Celtics fans.

Fixed that for you.

None of the ones I've read ever wished it on the transgressors. Going by the comics, there is evil in every corner, and the narrow path is narrow indeed, but the comics always broadcast a way out as well.

Crazy and over the top? Oh yes. Actively wishing evil on people? Show me a source.

"..., ending in an invitation to receive Christ"

Looks like he falls into the group trying to convince people to NOT end up in eternal punishment.

Which part of that track indicates Chick wanted someone to go to hell? Seems quite the opposite to me.

He consider that, in God's just judgement, the people who participate in such perverse activities will be sent to hell.

He believes in a just universe in which roleplaying games are punished by the eternal flames of hell.

He doesn't wish roleplayers to be saved from hell, he wishes them to cease roleplaying as a precondition to cease deserving hell.

And it's not about just roleplaying, but about any slight deviance from his own personal hobbies and way of life.

Either that, or his tracts are about how God is an utter twat. But this didn't strike me as their more explicit message.

Basically, "i have nothing against roleplayers, gays, muslims, etc] as long as they aren't [roleplayrs, gay, muslims, etc]".

He believed that people who participate in evil activities will be sent to hell. This is not a new concept, and nor is it restricted to Christianity. I imagine that the only thing stopping some people from believing such a thing is that they don't believe there is such a place to be sent to; I know it hasn't stopped some of my atheist friends from wishing for such a fate for certain people.

And? I certainly won't claim that he was right (quite the opposite on many things). He wouldn't be the first person to be badly misguided, and he won't be the last.

He DOES wish them saved from hell. It isn't surprising that he'd say "Stop doing evil!" as part of the message about reforming one's life.

Nothing new here either. Also, still not restricted to Christianity or even religion.

Not a new concept, either for those groups or for other groups. Other groups that are hated in different circles: Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Atheists, and Vegans. Mocking veganism might be the rarest on this particular forum, but I imagine it is somewhere around if you look hard enough.

The point is : stop claiming that he doesn't wish hell to these people. In his own version of rorschach God, all "these people" deserve hell, unless they are not "these people" anymore.

If you wish homosexuals to go to hell (that if, if you believe that a god of justice would send them to burn to hell), and all the benevolence you're capable of is "i wish you would cease to be homosexuals so that you would not go to hell", you are still implying that homosexuality is hell-worthy. You're still considering hell fair for those who dare "persist".

If you support a law that put to jail anyone who wears a hat, you can't go "oh i have nothing against people wearing hats". Going "welp, they just have to not wear hats" is a hypocrisy. You are still wishing jail to the people who do.

It is simply "a good indian is a dead indian".

So you're saying he wasn't a fan of most of the major religions?

I don't know, man... Maybe he was an OK guy, after all.

No, if you're going to watch a video on D&D paranoia, watch a review of the movie that was actually based on Chick's comic.

Ah. I have no reason to believe he wanted those people to go to hell.

Assume he believed they would go to hell if they didn't change.
Assume he wanted those people to go to hell.

Maybe I'm over thinking this, but it seems to me that the obvious course of action is NOT to advocate change. If they change, they might not end up in hell.

Warning someone about dire consequences is not the same thing as wishing said dire consequences on that person. Telling someone "Get off that conveyor belt that is about to drop you over the edge of that 100 story building!" isn't the same thing as hating the person.

To use an example I think you might agree with: Telling someone "You're going to end up in jail if you don't stop stealing" isn't the same as wanting the person to go to jail.

The difference is that you know the conveyor belt is unfair. While Chick believes in a world created, designed, ruled by a just God (a mirror of his own sense of justice).

As for the legal system, unlike the conveyor belt, it is based around you (as society) wishing the person to go to jail, or pay a fine, if he doesn't stop stealing (while we don't wish the conveyor belt to kill the people who stay on it). That is why, around here, the punishment is jail time, or fining. And not severed hands, or execution. Or eternal hell. Because these are things that we don't wish to thieves. We consider a system that kills thieves (or amputates them) to be an unjust system. And here we are talking about discouraging actual, objectively questionable activities, not about playing an RPG or falling in love with the same sex.

The rest is just the nuance between murder and assimilation, which are two forms of the same intolerance. When the brazilian state wanted to get rid of natives, there was two strategies : physical extermination, and forceful acculturation. Both strategies had the same motive and target : native amerindians were a bad thing that had to disappear. There is little difference, from that perspective, between slaughtering a tribe, or forcing it to discard all cultural identity. It's the same project of eradication. Likewise Chick's "warnings" are actual threats : "disappear or be punished forever in hell". It's driven by the same hatred for the beings that are asked to stop being themselves or to pay the price.

The same hypocritical excuses can be found in our societies, about foreigners, homosexuals, etc. "We have nothing against you, but stop showing any sign of difference or we'll punish you". It is a declaration of hatred and intolerance against these differences. Whether you wish those people to die, to morph, or to be tortured forever if not complying, you are raging against their persistence to not vanish from your world. You are declaring their existence to be an abomination, deserving the everlasting pyres.

What can I say. I have nothing against people with two legs, I swear. I just think that the world should be only populated by one-legged people, and that two-legged people should -and will- be tortured for all eternity. But this doesn't apply to the people who agree to cut off one leg, so stop saying that my one-leg planet is mean to the remaining two-legged people. On the opposite, I give them a saw as a way to be spared.

Seriously, the mere fact to associate (righteous) "hell punishment" to "those people" is a moral judgement on them, and an encouragement of this moral judgement. There is nothing forgiving, kind-hearted or humane there.

And now we could get into an argument about where the lines of moral right/wrong exist. I don't see it as productive, because I'm pretty sure you won't be able to change my mind and I won't be able to change yours. So I'm planning to skip that, as best I can.

-----

I'm getting a strong implication that you think people should be accepted as they are. I have to assume you don't mean this in a blanket fashion, as I assume you would agree that (more extreme example) serial killers shouldn't be allowed to pursue their desires.

So I'm curious: how do you decide where your lines are drawn? Which behaviors are okay, and which are not? Why are the lines where they are?

He was the sort who basically said, "If you don't follow this exact path, you're screwed. No matter what."

That included atheists, by the way.
Well, actually that one implies that everything would be alright if you simply ask for forgiveness after committing sexual assault, rather than there still being massive problems because you did such actions.
Reading his tracts and his completely bizarre ideas are a source of laughter. Think along the lines of MST3K.

I am not accepting Jack Chick as he is (or, technically, was).

Maximisation of collective happiness (and related intentions). Which means, maximisation of possible freedom/diversity, at the sacrifice of the most narrow-minded uniformists (the fringes most phobic to alterity). Innocents are those normal people whose activities don't harm others (the way they cook, dress, love, play, pray, etc). Assholes are those egomaniacs who go ruin their lives (for profit through theft, scam, rape, etc, or for esthetic reasons, such as because it doesn't match their taste for homogeneity and this is so super serious that restoring sweet uniformity justifies crushing people). Basically, it's a matter of minimized harm between all humans. Some care, some don't. Chick doesn't. Chick is an evil prick whose only drive is to enforce conformity to the most narrowly defined model, through the most totalitarian representation imaginable : a godly omnipotent dictatorial sociopath. He's the embodiment of the creepiest religious fundamentalism : "To the furnace with everyone that isn't me."

So yeah, a mere homosexual, jew, or roleplayer is, by default (unless unrelated harmful activities), far on one side of the line, while a sectarian fanatic preaching hatred against all difference is far on the other side. As for the line itself, it's necessarily blurred, as it's a matter of degrees both in attitudes and deserved reactions (situations are complex, and there's a lot of space between deserving a revoked friendship and deserving jail time). But generally speaking, acceptability is that. How much of an actual nuisance someone becomes to someone who isn't. And Chick, stepping in to stigmatise (and exhort others to stigmatise) harmless people, is a spectacularly gratuitous, useless, and self-serving nuisance. Or at least attempts to be.

So yes, I tend to sigh of relief whenever the planet is dragged down by one less of these creeps. Although, as I said, in this specific case, the guy was probably so (unvoluntarily) counter-productive that it hardly matters.

I would ask more, but the kinds of things I'd inquire about are too easily taken as offensive. I think I'm done here unless you invite a deeper questioning.

So basically, your problem is less with Chick and more just religion in general, considering that's a basic facet of multiple such mono- or pantheistic faiths. Which I suspect is going to be the same issue a lot of people have.