Ship of Fools: Hell: Inside The Mind Of Chick, vol CXVII...

Thread: Hell: Inside The Mind Of Chick, vol CXVII... Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001079

Posted by Rex Monday (# 2569) on :

I just can't resist sharing. Sorry.

"On January 24 this year, Pope John Paul II again illustrated his position as head of the Mother of Harlots and Abominations by inviting 200 delegates from 12 major world religions to Assisi, Italy to pray together for world peace."

-- Jack Chick

[ 26. April 2003, 23:09: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :

I'm sure Chick would prefer prayers for the "Best Way of Blowing to Bits all those Goddamned Commies, Atheists, Catholics, Homos and Anyone Else Who Isnt a Fundie"

What sort of nutters believe this bilge ? [Projectile]

Posted by Professor Yaffle (# 525) on :

I can't believe that the Holy Father thought that our Jack wouldn't see through that old world peace gag.

Haw! Haw! Haw!

Posted by Columcille (# 1384) on :

Shall I put in a link? O.K
strong stomach required [Projectile]

Here's the article in referred to in the O.P

peace is evil

Posted by da_musicman (# 1018) on :

Okay this is an Onion style satire right? Right? Please say its so.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

Actually, while I find Chick repellent and just plain wrong, he's not focusing on The Evils Of World Peace in this case, but on the Evils of Ecumenical Interaction.

Just to keep our Evils straight here.

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by da_musicman:
Okay this is an Onion style satire right? Right? Please say its so.

Sadly it's Jack Chick's exact feelings on various subjects.

Viki

Posted by Ann (# 94) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Actually, while I find Chick repellent and just plain wrong, he's not focusing on The Evils Of World Peace in this case, but on the Evils of Ecumenical Interaction.

Just to keep our Evils straight here.

And also the evils of petitioning the Almighty in languages not seen in the KJV?

Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :

It is astonishing to see evangelical Christians stepping onto that bridge on one end while at the same time Hindus, Buddhists, and pagans of every stripe are stepping onto it from the other.

I just adore the worldview that naturally divides all faiths in the world into "evangelical Protestants" and "everybody else".

Posted by Amanuensis (# 1555) on :

"what happens to Chick tracts after you pass them out?".

I think I have a rough idea. [Wink]

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :

You mean evangelicals aren't the only real Christians after all? [Big Grin]

Posted by Rex Monday (# 2569) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Actually, while I find Chick repellent and just plain wrong, he's not focusing on The Evils Of World Peace in this case, but on the Evils of Ecumenical Interaction.

Just to keep our Evils straight here.

I know. I am guilty of quoting out of context for rhetorical ends, and if proof-texting be a sin when working with the words of the Divine OP how can it be right when battling with Mr Chick? I unreservedly apologise to the man (or whatever person or persons spew up that mighty flow). But if ever proof were needed that America is not bereft of irony but rather the world's leading producer, here 'tis.

R

------------------------------------------

"...and those who fain would serve thee best,
are conscious most of Spong within"

Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :

Guys like Chick make me feel self-conscious when describing myself as a "Christian." To many people, his ilk are the only Christians they encounter.

Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :

Please don't slag off JTC, his comics have provided amusement for millions, and brought many people to the Lord (probably). Chick tracts are always high quality and about the only Christian publications that don't make me cringe.

His conspiracy theories are a bit... much.... ..but most of his views are those than can be found in an MOR CofE church, only Jack has the guts to say what he thinks. Frankly I find the A**** course nonsense to be far more offensive.

Posted by Gill H (# 68) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
most of his views are those than can be found in an MOR CofE church,

Really?

I've come across less extreme versions of such views, but nothing like them in any kind of CofE church. (Thank God!)

Posted by Tim V (# 830) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
Please don't slag off JTC, his comics have provided amusement for millions, and brought many people to the Lord (probably). Chick tracts are always high quality and about the only Christian publications that don't make me cringe.

His conspiracy theories are a bit... much.... ..but most of his views are those than can be found in an MOR CofE church, only Jack has the guts to say what he thinks. Frankly I find the A**** course nonsense to be far more offensive.

OK, for the sake of my sanity I'm going to assume the above is satire. Please don't disillusion me. Please?

Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :

quote:
I'm sure Chick would prefer prayers for the "Best Way of Blowing to Bits all those Goddamned Commies, Atheists, Catholics, Homos and Anyone Else Who Isnt a Fundie"

I think Jack Chick merely wants to see people saved. None of his literature promotes violence.

Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
but most of his views are those than can be found in an MOR CofE church

Name one!

(Not St. Helen's, Bishopsgate, which by no stretch of the imagination could be described as MOR.)

Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :

Apologies for double posting but editing appears to be a privelege granted only to the mods.

quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
most of his views are those than can be found in an MOR CofE church,
Really?

I've come across less extreme versions of such views, but nothing like them in any kind of CofE church. (Thank God!)

What, views like salvation is through Jesus Christ only? That if you don't repent you are doomed for the lake of fire (Matthew 25.41)? Homosexuality is sinful? That some aspects of the Roman church are less than Biblical? Please expand...

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
Please don't slag off JTC, his comics have provided amusement for millions, and brought many people to the Lord (probably). Chick tracts are always high quality and about the only Christian publications that don't make me cringe.

His conspiracy theories are a bit... much.... ..but most of his views are those than can be found in an MOR CofE church, only Jack has the guts to say what he thinks. Frankly I find the A**** course nonsense to be far more offensive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, for the sake of my sanity I'm going to assume the above is satire. Please don't disillusion me. Please?

Chick tracts preach that one is saved through Jesus, and that not repenting leads to hell. At their best they put across the very basic message of Christianity well.

This is what Alpha would teach, yes? Except one gets to read a humour packed cartoon instead of eating pasta with a bunch of middle-class evangelicals.

Chick tracts are always quality. The only other Christian literature that hasn't either made me fume/cringe/yawn was some Adrian Plass. And Chick doesn't have "Stress Family Robinson" QC problems of writing total shit half the time. I think even cuddly AP believes non-repenters go to hell, at least from what I can acertain.

Posted by Ham'n'Eggs (# 629) on :

And how is The Death Cookie in any way "basic Christianity" rather than appalling ignorance and judgementalism?

And what exactly do you mean by Biblical (bearing in mind that all strands of Christianity are based on the Bible)? Your own point of view, at the exclusion of everyone elses?

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :

Jack Chick's constant flow of tracts are very good at highlighting at least one Biblical principle, at any rate:

quote:
As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

Proverbs 26:11 (Authorised Version, naturally)

I don't get particularly upset by anti-Catholic Protestants who base their opposition on things the Catholic Church actually teaches, or things the Catholic Church has actually done in history. But since Jack Chick just spews drivel with no relation to either history (his only historical citations are other Chick tracts or rabid anti-Catholic publications from the 19th-century) or Catholic teaching (Trent did not say that anyone who denies its dogmas should be executed, no matter how much Chick claims otherwise), then I do find the idea that anyone could consider him a genuine representative of Christianity disturbing. There's a page here that provides an outline of World History According to Jack Chick. When you put it all together, it reads like a monologue from the asylum:

The Awful Truth

If he's mentally ill, then God help him. I feel sorry for him. The alternative is that he bears false witness on a scale which is almost beyond comprehension.

Then, of course, there's the fact that he's immensely vulgar, and that his depiction of God makes Him appear an anthropomorphic sadist. However, I don't suppose one can fairly hold his artistic and spiritual limitations to be moral flaws.

Posted by Professor Yaffle (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Eleighteen:

quote:
Please don't slag off JTC,

But Jack wants people like me to be thrown in the Lake of Fire and tormented for saying the Hail Mary and not being a lunatic fundamentalist. All I want to do is take the mickey a bit. Have some sense of proportion.

quote:
his comics have provided amusement for millions,

Well, that is undoubtedly true.

quote:
and brought many people to the Lord (probably).

Unfortunately all these people have been left with the distinct impression that the Lord is actually a faceless malevolent entity whose main recreation involves throwing people into the lake of fire. If Mr Chick wishes to worship such a deity, so be it. But for those of us who follow the Lord Jesus Christ, it is frustrating to see our Lord and God tarred with the shortcomings of Mr Chick's particular idol.

quote:
His conspiracy theories are a bit... much.... ..but most of his views are those than can be found in an MOR CofE

Ummm, I used to attend an MOR church, not long ago. I once took the opportunity to explain the Chick phenomenon to some of my fellow members. Appalled hilarity is the best description of their response. Frankly, if I were to attribute such views to anything like the majority of evangelical Anglicans, most of the evangelical Anglicans on this board would flame me to Hell and back.

Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :

quote:
"what happens to Chick tracts after you pass them out?".

Chick tracts get read!

quote:
And how is The Death Cookie in any way "basic Christianity" rather than appalling ignorance and judgementalism?

Chick doesn't attack the ritual of celebrating Jesus by consuming the bread and wine of Christ. He simply maintains the long held Protestant view that the ritual is symbolic, and not literal. As Jesus said, "Eat this in REMEMBRANCE of me". This has been debated to death on these boards, and everywhere else in the world. Chick is entitled to his opinion on this matter as much as you are.

quote:
But Jack wants people like me to be thrown in the Lake of Fire and tormented for saying the Hail Mary and not being a lunatic fundamentalist.

JTC doesn't want anyone to be thrown into the lake of fire. His views on Roman Catholicism are controversial, but he's no bigot. He's never suggested rounding up the Catholics and killing them for their beliefs. What Jack has tried to do is convert Catholics to what he considers true Christianity-- a personal relationship with Christ. Not through torture, not through burning at the stake, but through comic books.

quote:
And what exactly do you mean by Biblical (bearing in mind that all strands of Christianity are based on the Bible)? Your own point of view, at the exclusion of everyone elses?

Doesn't the Roman church do just this, in saying it is the one true church. I know it tries to qualify the statement, but that just makes it seem worse to me...

quote:
Frankly, if I were to attribute such views to anything like the majority of evangelical Anglicans, most of the evangelical Anglicans on this board would flame me to Hell and back.

See my post ealier about what Evangelical Anglicans think, the similarities of them to Chick and explain as I am bit thick [Wink]

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
His views on Roman Catholicism are controversial, but he's no bigot.

To quote the Man himself:

HAW! HAW! HAW!

Posted by Inanna (# 538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
What Jack has tried to do is convert Catholics to what he considers true Christianity-- a personal relationship with Christ.

But that assumes that Catholics don't have this to begin with. Which is most definitely an incorrect assumption.

Telling Catholics that their religion was founded by Satan is really not a good way to go about getting them to listen, either...

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
Chick doesn't attack the ritual of celebrating Jesus by consuming the bread and wine of Christ. He simply maintains the long held Protestant view that the ritual is symbolic, and not literal.

No, I'm afraid he doesn't "simply" do that; if that were the case, it would be fine. He claims a host (no pun intended) of other things about the RC Church which attribute it to Satan in countless particulars. Saying "the ritual is symbolic" or even "belief in transubstantiation is idolatrous" is not the same as dragging in Osiris and so on (see links above).

Posted by Tim V (# 830) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Inanna:
Telling Catholics that their religion was founded by Satan is really not a good way to go about getting them to listen, either...

You know, I had this from a couple of Catholics once. Didn't take it personally since they were misguided on so many other things.

Anyway, we've yet to hear how the Alpha course is more offensive than Jack Chick.

Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :

quote:
No, I'm afraid he doesn't "simply" do that; if that were the case, it would be fine. He claims a host (no pun intended) of other things about the RC Church which attribute it to Satan in countless particulars.

quote:
If he's mentally ill, then God help him. I feel sorry for him.

For all this talk about how Jack is crazy, most of his historical facts are....well... facts. No one can prove or disprove if the Catholic Church is really out to take over the world by sinister means. But no-one can refute the Catholic Crusades, or the forged letter to King Pepin from Saint Peter? These are factual Papal intrigues.

Some of what Jack says is clearly conjecture on his part, but if you try to pin him down in an outright lie, you might be surprised how difficult it is to do. He may be vague when it comes to details, and his suspicions about the real motivations of who did what (e.g., Lenin and Marx were closet Catholics, Hitler worked for the Pope) are impossible to prove (or disprove), but most the names and dates are indeed correct. (Yes, Hitler did model the S.S. after the Jesuits, but that doesn't prove he worked for the Pope.)

Posted by MatrixUK (# 3452) on :

Just to throw something into the mix...

I really dislike the tone and content of many Chick tracts, BUT, my older brother, who had no faith at all (his words..) somehow got hold of a great stack of them, which led him to search for himself. He agreed with some, disagreed with others, and has come to some level of faith in Christ because of them.

Something about grace comes to mind...

Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tim V:

quote:
Originally posted by Inanna:
Telling Catholics that their religion was founded by Satan is really not a good way to go about getting them to listen, either...
You know, I had this from a couple of Catholics once. Didn't take it personally since they were misguided on so many other things.

Anyway, we've yet to hear how the Alpha course is more offensive than Jack Chick.

Nicky Gumbell for starters.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0095/0095_01.asp

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
For all this talk about how Jack is crazy, most of his historical facts are....well... facts.

I certainly wouldn't say "most" by any stretch of the imagination in this case. His allegations against the RC church are far more extreme than the Crusades, Pepin and such. And they can all be found on the numerous tracts here in their entirety, as well as all of this stuff here.

It's all on Chick's site, and I'm sorry, but I think it's pretty twisted. [Frown]

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
Nicky Gumbell for starters.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0095/0095_01.asp

This tract is an offence to scripture, an offence to the Gospel, and an offence to Jesus.

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
Some of what Jack says is clearly conjecture on his part, but if you try to pin him down in an outright lie, you might be surprised how difficult it is to do.

I like surprises. Let's start with The Death Cookie. The first piece of factual information Mr Chick claims to provide is regarding the similarity between the Catholic Mass and the worship habits of ancient Egyptians. We are told that the priests of Egypt consecrate unleavened bread, and then claimed "transubstantiation" had taken place, with the bread becoming God.

This is historical bunk. It was born in the work, "The Two Babylons", by Alexander Hislop - a nineteenth century anti-Catholic cleric. It's also very obviously untrue. Transubstantiation has a specific meaning - the maintenance of the appearances whilst the substance has changed. Since the language to express these concepts is rooted in Aristotelian categories which the scholastics adopted, the idea that ancient Egyptians had the equivalent is patently untrue. For further reasons to reject Hislop's work, see:

Tektonics Review of "The Two Babylons"

It's brief, but it makes the points that need making. Note that the website is a non-denominational Christian one, as opposed to a Catholic apologetics one. Another of the main debunkers of the Babylon mystery religion claims is Ralph Woodrow, who as a young man was one of its main exponents. See:

Is Catholicism Pagan?

The next thing Mr Chick shows is a Mass in action. The priest says "Hocus Pocus Domi Nocus". It goes without saying that this is a total misrepresentation of consecration. I can't actually work out when Chick's trying to be funny any more.

Regarding Scripture - well, it's true that laity weren't given their own copies of the Scriptures, although they did hear readings from them, and popular versions of Scriptural stories were shared through oral traditions. This can be attributed both to the Church's lack of belief in the Reformed doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture, and the fear of heresy spreading.

The panel which deals with the Church inventing lots of other Jesuses is so dumb as to not even merit comment, apart from a brief note that the Tektonics page above points out the problem with the IHS theory regarding the Eucharist. If Chick can't cope with the idea of believing in Christ and at the same time recognising that there was more than one stage in His life (presumably Chick doesn't read the infancy narratives), then that's really his problem, not the Catholic Church's.

The next claim - that the Church did not teach justification by faith - is also nonsense. It didn't teach justification by faith alone - but then, the only place that that is explicitly mentioned in the Bible, it's to deny that it's true. (James 2:24) There are some good Protestant counter-arguments, but Chick doesn't provide them. And the Catholic Church has always taught that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

Chick's interpretation of Luke 22:19 - "do this in remembrance of me" as evidence of Christ instituting a purely symbolic meal - ignores the dialogue in John 6, which I warmly recommend to you. It also ignores Jesus' words: "This is my body" (as opposed to, for instance, "this symbolises my body".) Doing something to remember someone doesn't mean that what you are doing is symbolic. Again, there's no doubt that better arguments can be made in favour of the Protestant position. But you won't be reading them in a Chick tract. Like his history, Jack's exegesis is pretty poor.

The claim that 68 million people died in the Inquisition is unsupported by any historical documentation. However, there's an excellent article available here which addresses the claims of prominent anti-Catholics such as Chick:

The Inquisition

Next in The Death Cookie, Chick informs us that the canons and decrees of Trent demand the execution of anyone who denies transubstantiation. This is nonsense. When Church councils that someone is "anathema", it means their beliefs in this area are wrong - they are, literally, "cursed" (in that they have separated themselves from God's truth.) There is no implication that they should therefore be executed.

And yes, Catholics do engage in Eucharistic adoration. That's because we believe that God is present, and we worship God. Chick is right on this point. If people want to call it idolatry, that's fine. But unless they can make a compelling case (and as we've seen, Chick hasn't quite succeeded on that front) then they shouldn't expect Catholics to pay much attention to them.

quote:
He may be vague when it comes to details, and his suspicions about the real motivations of who did what (e.g., Lenin and Marx were closet Catholics, Hitler worked for the Pope) are impossible to prove (or disprove), but most the names and dates are indeed correct. (Yes, Hitler did model the S.S. after the Jesuits, but that doesn't prove he worked for the Pope.)

No, not vague. Wrong. If intentionally wrong, then a liar. If unintentionally wrong, then incompetent and lacking in integrity. Getting the names and dates right really isn't saying much. If I said that the Holocaust was masterminded by American Jewish bankers, and named some of them and then named the Nazi command and accurately told you when the Holocaust happened, I'd be fulfilling your criteria for "speculation". Personally, it seems obvious to me that this isn't "speculation". It's lying. Or madness. To claim that the KKK, communism, Nazism, freemasonry, Islam, Christian Science, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, etc. etc. etc. were all spawned by the Catholic Church - without a single shred of credible evidence, and in the face of massive amounts of counter-evidence - is not honest, and is certainly not Christian. It's also an enormous insult to those, living and dead, whose suffering as a result of these phenomena is trivialised and treated as a means to an end - the end being the pursuit of a rabid anti-Catholic agenda.

These things really shouldn't need explaining. Chick's stuff belongs in the same bin as hardcore pornography and Holocaust revisionism.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
Lenin and Marx were closet Catholics

Wow! A conspiracy theory I've never heard before! This is wonderful!

A really, really DUMB conspiracy theory, but still one I've never heard before.

I have heard the Isis bit before though. Once someone really told me that IHS stood for "Isis, Horus, Seth". [Frown]

IIRC he was a Methodist. Most Anglicans (MOR or otherwise) seem to think it stands for "In His Service". Maybe there should be compulsory Greek language lessons.

And why those 3 names if Osiris is meant to be the point.

There are enough evil things in church history without making more up.

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :

I note that eleighteen has described himself on his profile as 'arguably not a christian'

I have no right to say, but if you're thinking of calling yourself something else instead, could you do it as soon as possible, as I think you would definitely put off the vast bulk of people with brain intact if they think that Christianity had anything at all to do with the sickening bigotry you have decided to assault us with here today. You have even managed to offend the other evangelicals on the board, which suggests to me that you may have your own agenda.

Which church do you attend?

Posted by da_musicman (# 1018) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
Nicky Gumbell for starters.

Link to Chick Tract
This tract is an offence to scripture, an offence to the Gospel, and an offence to Jesus.

Amen to that Wood

[edited to test scroll problem]

[ 31. October 2002, 09:30: Message edited by: frin ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:

quote:
Anyway, we've yet to hear how the Alpha course is more offensive than Jack Chick.
Nicky Gumbell for starters.
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0095/0095_01.asp[/QB]

That link doesn't point to anything about Nicky Gumbell, or Alpha. It points to a Chick tract about a hypocritical preacher who isn't saved, and a humble poor man who tries to convert him.

It isn't a looney tract like the Cookie one is, pretty straightforward presentation of the gospel. A sort of updating of the story of the rich man and Lazarus into the style of a 1950s EC comic.

Much like Alpha really, though a bit cruder and more direct and without the tea.

Or are you implying that Gumbell is like they hypocritical preacher in the tract? In which case you have to say something about Gumbell. We all know that rich hypocrites exist. Do you think he is one of them?

Posted by da_musicman (# 1018) on :

Wot got up my nose about this was the way in which the man was condemned for not preaching salvation by faith but by works.Now In the only part of the tract where he was preaching he didn't make any such claim.He just said that Jesus wanted us to help the poor and to stop bickering (If my memory serves me correctly.).So this gives credence to the lie that we don't need to do these things that they are in someway extra to the gospel rather thasn being a fundamental(Dangerous word to use. [Razz]

) part. After all it is the Gospel of the Kingdom.And aren't we suppose to try and usher it in even though we can't be ourselves?

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :

Da_Musicman,

The only acceptable ministry is the Drawing Of Obnoxious Cartoon Strips. You should know better than to ask such heretical questions.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

Wow!

eleighteen and Jack Chick have managed, in one small thread, to do more for interfaith ecumenical agreement than anyone in recent memory; at very least, we're all in agreement on one thing now! [Big Grin]

Posted by da_musicman (# 1018) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Da_Musicman,

The only acceptable ministry is the Drawing Of Obnoxious Cartoon Strips. You should know better than to ask such heretical questions.

Oh dear because I can only draw stick men plus they all look as if their legs have been broken. Just think of the schisms that could develop from that?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by da_musicman:
Wot got up my nose about this was the way in which the man was condemned for not preaching salvation by faith but by works.Now In the only part of the tract where he was preaching he didn't make any such claim.He just said that Jesus wanted us to help the poor and to stop bickering (If my memory serves me correctly.).So this gives credence to the lie that we don't need to do these things that they are in someway extra to the gospel rather thasn being a fundamental(Dangerous word to use. ) part. After all it is the Gospel of the Kingdom.And aren't we suppose to try and usher it in even though we can't be ourselves?

I think you are over-interpreting. Just because Jack Chick is a dangerous, aggressive, bigoted, looney who is willing to invent "facts" (or at least overlook the origin of "facts" in order to bolster his threadbare arguments, doesn't mean everything he says is a conspiracy...

Did you notice, the preacher in the strip shared a taxi with a Roman Catholic priest! He was unequally yoked! No wonder the other 300 people on those planes deserved to die, they were in the same aircraft as a man who rode in cars with Jesuits! How pagan can you get!

Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
This tract is an offence to scripture, an offence to the Gospel, and an offence to Jesus.

Pretty much hits the nail on the head.

Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :

quote:
I note that eleighteen has described himself on his profile as 'arguably not a christian'

I have no right to say, but if you're thinking of calling yourself something else instead, could you do it as soon as possible, as I think you would definitely put off the vast bulk of people with brain intact if they think that Christianity had anything at all to do with the sickening bigotry you have decided to assault us with here today.

Wow! You've cast me into the lake of fire as "not a Christian", despite the fact I've discussed not one of my views here. Except a liking for Chick tracts (though I've expressed no agreement or disagreement with the theology within them). Hawhawhaw! You appear to be guilty of even worse bigotry than that you accuse Chick of.

Actually I'm not sure where I've "unleashed bigotry", perhaps you could point me the post where I have. I've merely attempted to defend Jack Chick's right to his opinions - right or wrong - and to try and show where he may be coming from.

quote:
You have even managed to offend the other evangelicals on the board

Evangelicals often... ..well not upset me.. ..not any more.. ...but I strongly disagree with many of their views. Not that I'd call them bigots or deny they are Christians 'though. Oh and "other evangelicals" [Confused]

Have I said I'm an evangelical?

quote:
Which church do you attend?

Why is this relevant? This thread is about the views of Jack Chick. In my experience (and I apologise if I'm wrong) such questions tend to be asked by overenthusiastic CU-ers seeking to denounce people as "unsound".

quote:
That link doesn't point to anything about Nicky Gumbell, or Alpha. It points to a Chick tract about a hypocritical preacher who isn't saved, and a humble poor man who tries to convert him... ...Or are you implying that Gumbell is like they hypocritical preacher in the tract?

I was trolling here and I retract. However Gumbell - to me - appears a bit of an egotist, and I have strong reservations about Alpha (which is perhaps for another thread). As for the tract itself.. ...well it's not in a style to everyone's taste.. ...but it shows good deeds are not the way to God but faith is.. ...something which the vast majority of unbelievers out there don't realise.

quote:
I really dislike the tone and content of many Chick tracts, BUT, my older brother, who had no faith at all (his words..) somehow got hold of a great stack of them, which led him to search for himself. He agreed with some, disagreed with others, and has come to some level of faith in Christ because of them.

And that is the point of Chick. His cartoon interpretations of the gospel - whether you agree them or not - get read and get people thinking, and in that they do some (a lot) of good.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
<snip> Anyway, we've yet to hear how the Alpha course is more offensive than Jack Chick.

quote:
Nicky Gumbell for starters.
Chick Tract

It seems to be more of a pot shot against Tony Campolo rather than Gumbell. (Who may not have registered on Jack's radar as yet).

And it is indeed, an offence against the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Now, anyone got any screen wipe, my 'puter feels dirty ...

Tubbs

[Code was dirty too.]

[ 23. October 2002, 23:15: Message edited by: sarkycow ]

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :

Why don't you try answering the questions, eleighteen ? Or do you have something to hide ?

You have come on here to defend Chick, something which hardly anyone else wishes to do.

So from what position do you support him, given that you say you are not an evangelical ? Thats why I asked which church you go to, as you seem to have damned both Catholics, by your support of Chick, and the evangelicalism of Alpha. So where are you coming from ?

Posted by Dyfrig (# 15) on :

Ah. I understand now.

Someone who describes themselves as probably not a Christian, has a sig. implying that they are an unbeliever, has in another place stated that Jesus' historicity is "irrelevant" and is defending Jack Chick as a purveyor of the same sort of things found in MoR churches.

Don't miss next week's episode when eleighteen will be providing evidence of the processes that went into creating a large spheroid of green cheese to orbit the earth.

Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dyfrig:
Someone who describes themselves as probably not a Christian, has a sig. implying that they are an unbeliever

[Tangent]

A few people have commented similarly on this person's credentials and, while I don't want to get involve in the whole Chick Mad/Not Mad thing (I vote for Mad, incidentally), it does make me wonder a little. I didn't think, while I was lurking, that is was a requirement to be a practising Christian to join this board.

Anyone who looks at my profile will notice that I put 'none' in the 'Religion or Denomination' section. I put this because I was not brought up in any religious tradition, do not currently attend any church, and, even if I did, am not sure that I would wish to define myself in this way. That said, I joined the board because I feel I am engaged in some sort of spiritual 'journey' ( [Eek!]

can't think of a better word), and have found the discussions here both helpful and interesting.

Comments on a few threads recently have made me wonder if this is acceptable, if I am breaking some unwritten rule, or if I could be interpreted (as eleighteen is evidently being) as masquerading under false pretences of some kind?

Just wondered, doesn't mean I'm necessarily going to go away either way [Smile]

.
[/Tangent]

Posted by Dyfrig (# 15) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
I didn't think, while I was lurking, that is was a requirement to be a practising Christian to join this board.

It's not, and it never has been.

My point is somewhat different - I believe Mr e to playing with us a little, seeing how far he can go with defending the indefensible.

Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Why don't you try answering the questions, eleighteen ? Or do you have something to hide ?

You have come on here to defend Chick, something which hardly anyone else wishes to do.

So from what position do you support him, given that you say you are not an evangelical ? Thats why I asked which church you go to, as you seem to have damned both Catholics, by your support of Chick, and the evangelicalism of Alpha. So where are you coming from ?

It is not my intention to go through Chick's supposed offences towards Roman Catholics one by one. I've tried to explain that JTC uses some historical claims, and the validity of his views (like those of his denouncers) are largely conjecture. Basically he has - and is entitled to - his sincerely held views just as much as any of you are.

I'm supporting Chick as his tracts are, IMO, the best quality Christian literature out there. He gets across the simple message that salvation is through Christ ONLY in an effective manner. On this point one cannot argue with Chick, and the simple direct nature of his cartoons tells this fact to a secular world that by and large DOESN'T KNOW THIS. His message is especially effective with a (for want of a better word) working-class audience, who are not too concerned with pontificating about theology.

The other aspects of his (ahem) beliefs are rather less relevant than this central message, and are generally OK by most Christians anyway (I listed some way back that no-one argued with). The anti-Catholic publications are not to everyones taste, but make up only about one in ten of tracts. Remember Jack is human, and we all have our foibles, he only publishes them (at risk to both his livelyhood and LIFE) because he genuinly wishes to see Catholics saved, and sees their CHURCH, not individuals in it as the problem. My opinions on the Roman Church are irrelevant to this debate, my point is you damn Chick on the basis of just one part of his literature.

My comments about Alpha were probably best left to another thread. I don't have a high opinion of it (many don't!) although it does do some good. Likewise evangelicals. The same is true for your opinion of Chick, except I don't post saying that Alpha should be banned, or that Nicky Gumbell is mentally ill (I retracted likening him to "Reverand Wonderful").

There are thousands (hundreds of thousands) of people who have found their way to the Lord with the help of Chick. Ones such testimony is on this thread. Do you think that is bad.....? Or are you just jealous because his ministry is so effective?

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :

Eleighteen,

When you have the energy, please feel free to address my post, since you are repeating claims (such as the speculation one) which I think have been rendered totally unbelievable by what I posted.

Posted by Lux Mundi (# 1981) on :

Surely the talking about mind of Jack Chick (like the minds of evangelical's) is an Oxymoron [Snigger]

.

[no offence to evangelicals meant!]

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lux Mundi:
Surely the talking about mind of Jack Chick (like the minds of evangelical's) is an Oxymoron .

[no offence to evangelicals meant!]

This may be hell, but Just Don't Go There.
[Disappointed]

Tubbs

Posted by Campbell Ritchie (# 730) on :

Posted by Lux Mundi

quote:
no offence to evangelicals meant!

Just as well!

No offence taken [Cool]

[/tangent]
I thought Chick had died. Am I mistaken?

CR

Posted by SteveTom (# 23) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lux Mundi:
Surely the talking about mind of Jack Chick (like the minds of evangelical's) is an Oxymoron .

[no offence to evangelicals meant!]

Would that be the same kind of oxymoron as 'an Anglo-Catholic who doesn't have their head up their ass'?

No offence.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
There are thousands (hundreds of thousands) of people who have found their way to the Lord with the help of Chick. Ones such testimony is on this thread. Do you think that is bad.....? Or are you just jealous because his ministry is so effective?

I'm strongly tempted to say, "What concept of God are they being converted to?" If it's one like Chick's, yes, I do believe it is very bad. I'd sooner be another religion entirely which has a healthier notion of God's sense of goodness than something which uses the word "Christian" and has some of the theology but the attitude I see in Chick's work.

I'm going to ask this: Eleighteen, are you being serious here or are you just saying these things to see what reaction you get? You're vague about what you yourself believe... do you want to engage with us and have real dialogue, or is this for some other purpose?

I've known a lot of people into, say, the Church of the SubGenius and related things, even some atheists who collect Chick tracts for the sheer shrill camp value of it, and from their point of view, Chick really is "the heart of Christianity." It goes without saying that they have a very, very low opinion of what that heart is like.

As far as I am concerned, Chick is driving people away from healthy Christianity in droves.

Posted by Campbell Ritchie (# 730) on :

[Risk of turning Purgatorial]
Posted by ChastMastr:-

quote:
Chick is driving people away from healthy Christianity in droves.

Thank you, CM. I find I am in agreement with you. I first came across Chick tracts in my Undergraduate days about 1972, when they were described as "rubbish." Despite Chick's obvious wish to have people come to know Jesus, the style of writing (even 'though it causes the great amusesment Eleighteen mentioned) tends to put people off the real thing. It is rather like using small doses of religion to immunise against the real thing.*

We have to look not only at Chick's intentions, but the likely results, where I shall agree with CM again.
[/Risk of turning Purgatorial]

*Misquote from C S Lewis, not sure where from, probably Screwtape.

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :

quote:
Catholics believe that if the host accidentally falls on the floor, in order to show proper respect the body and blood of Christ, the priest must get down on his hands and knees and lick it all up.

Jack Chick or SOF?

Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on :

My tongue is bleeding. Time to wade into the waters.

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
It is not my intention to go through Chick's supposed offences towards Roman Catholics one by one. I've tried to explain that JTC uses some historical claims, and the validity of his views (like those of his denouncers) are largely conjecture. Basically he has - and is entitled to - his sincerely held views just as much as any of you are.

Tried, perhaps, but you have not succeeded, in explaining howhis claims are "historical". Mr. Chick has no qualms whatsoever about twisting or manufacturing "facts" to suit his purposes. Those who point out his historical "inconsistencies" (read:"lies") are at least able to back up their points with evidence. Yes, Mr. Chick is entitled to his views, and no one here is denying his right to hold them. But his views are about as credible as those who claim the Royal family are actually giant lizards from outer space.

quote:
I'm supporting Chick as his tracts are, IMO, the best quality Christian literature out there.

I . am . speechless. [Eek!]

quote:
He gets across the simple message that salvation is through Christ ONLY in an effective manner. On this point one cannot argue with Chick, and the simple direct nature of his cartoons tells this fact to a secular world that by and large DOESN'T KNOW THIS. His message is especially effective with a (for want of a better word) working-class audience, who are not too concerned with pontificating about theology.

Methinks you underestimate the "working-class" audience.

quote:
The anti-Catholic publications are not to everyones taste, but make up only about one in ten of tracts. Remember Jack is human, and we all have our foibles, he only publishes them (at risk to both his livelyhood and LIFE) because he genuinly wishes to see Catholics saved, and sees their CHURCH, not individuals in it as the problem.

My inital response to this statement was "Are you out of your mind?" Not to eveyone's taste??? If the same things were said about Anglicans, or Orthodox (and I wouldn't be the least bit surprized if Mr. Chick felt that way about those groups of Christians as well) would you still think it simply a matter of "taste"?

God forbid!

Catholics ARE Christian. They are already saved. It seems to me that it is Mr. Chick who needs to meet Jesus.

quote:
My opinions on the Roman Church are irrelevant to this debate, my point is you damn Chick on the basis of just one part of his literature.

The hell they are irrelevant! If they were NOT relevant you would be guilty of trolling. And this is not only "one part" of Mr. Chick's so-called literature, it is part and parcel of his twisted theology.

quote:
There are thousands (hundreds of thousands) of people who have found their way to the Lord with the help of Chick. Ones such testimony is on this thread. Do you think that is bad.....? Or are you just jealous because his ministry is so effective?

Counting the one you mentioned in this thread earlier, I now know of precisely two people who have claimed to have found the Lord through a tract over the last THIRTY years. (I am not even sure the first one was a Chick tract.)

I am going to shut up now. [Flaming]

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :

Trip trap trip trap.

Posted by da_musicman (# 1018) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sarkycow:
Trip trap trip trap.

Could that be the sound of a Dead Horse Lurching over the Old Wooden Bridge?

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :

[Pedant mode on]:

quote:
Once someone really told me that IHS stood for "Isis, Horus, Seth". IIRC he was a Methodist. Most Anglicans (MOR or otherwise) seem to think it stands for "In His Service".

Isn't IHS actuallly Iota Epsilon Sigma, the first three letters of Jesus' name in Greek? [Pedant mode off]

However, I have another explanation. Iota Sigma Epsilon is the name of the fraternity that Chick belonged to at university (can't remember if he was Harvard or Yale, I'm afraid). This therefore is clear and undeniable proof, unlike so much of the speculation we have seen on this thread, that Chick is part of a vast secret conspiracy to unite all churches into a powerful army to achieve world domination. The tracts are just a smokescreen so no one will suspect anything until it's too late.

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :

I still note that Eleighteen hasn't told us what his personal position is.

I think we can come to our own conclusions from that reluctance

Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :

quote:
I'm strongly tempted to say, "What concept of God are they being converted to?" I'd sooner be another religion entirely which has a healthier notion of God's sense of goodness

Depends on whether you believe whether salvation is through Christ or not. For most Christians I know, it's paradise/lake of fire depending on whether one accepts Jesus or not.. .."There is no way to the father except through me" or something. I take it you're either not this type of Christian, or else you'd rather see someone in hell for eternity than have a Christian understanding different to your own.

quote:
I'm going to ask this: Eleighteen, are you being serious here or are you just saying these things to see what reaction you get?

I'm serious about defending Chick, although the reaction I get is interesting too.

quote:
You're vague about what you yourself believe...

Because this is about what Jack Chick believes. FWIW, I agree with some of and disagree with what is said by: Chick Publications; Roman Catholic Cathechism; The Alpha Course; CS Lewis; Adrian Plass; Josh McDowell; Jerry Falwell; Joyce Hugget; Evelyn Waugh.....etc.

I do agree with ALL of the Bible, which is open to interpretation.

quote:
do you want to engage with us and have real dialogue, or is this for some other purpose?

Yes I'd like Christians to appreciate that, oddball as he may seem, the Lord is using JTC to do some good. And snooty liberals who don't agree with his views should at least acknowledge that.

quote:
As far as I am concerned, Chick is driving people away from healthy Christianity in droves.

I note that Campbell Ritchie quotes CS Lewis. My future mother-in-law gave me a copy of "Mere Christianity" when I started courting (fabulous old-fashioned word) my wife. In a few pages he was guilty of appalling sexism (even for pre-feminist times) and advocated the breaking of one of the ten commandments on a pedantic (and false) technicality. He also said that those who don't accept Jesus get a bath in the good old lake of fire. This was a version of Christianity I don't hold today (though those that do are certainly Christians). But I don't rant about CS Lewis, even if some of his views are repellant to me. If this (that is heaven/hell depending on repentance) is what people believe, then I prefer Chick's in-yer-face approach to a load of flowery language.

quote:
Methinks you underestimate the "working-class" audience

Stop the average sportswear-clad.. ..erm.. person in the street in England and ask them what they think Christianity is about. They may mutter something about good deeds, though I doubt most ever give it a second though EVER. In fact that would go for the average man in a suit too. A good friend at college once told me that most people are neither agnostic/deist/atheist or anything, their religion is "don't know, don't care". A Chick tract might get across a basic message and cause someone to do some thinking.. ..whether they ultimately agree with all of Chick's views or not.

quote:
(JTC's views on Catholics) Not to eveyone's taste??? If the same things were said about Anglicans, would you still think it simply a matter of "taste"?

I'd simply laugh it off with a hearty "HawHawHaw!" It's strange how Chick's... ..erm.. fantastic claims rile Catholics so much.. ...you know they really touch a nerve... ..odd for things that are all total fabrications.

quote:
Catholics ARE Christian. They are already saved.

I certainly hope so. Chick would as well (he doesn't want to see anyone in the lake of fire), but his sincere interpretation of scripture believes them not to be. That's why he risks life and limb to "save" them.

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :

I notice that eleighteen still hasn't responded to my question.

Are you a 'lone wolf, or do you belong to a worshipping congregatin which would broadly share your perspective?

The point is that Chick presents a view which, irrespective of style, bears no resemblance to any sort of Christianity that I would want to believe in.

That is undoubtedly the reaction of most others too.

Posted by eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:

Yes I'd like Christians to appreciate that, oddball as he may seem, the Lord is using JTC to do some good.

There's a passage in Philippians 1:15-18 that has been a tremendous help to me in doing just that, not specifically for Chick, but I think it applies:

"It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defence of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? [italics mine] The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice."

I think this is a wonderful passage which enables us to rejoice wherever the gospel is announced enabling some to be saved, whatever the format... without feeling we personally have to identify with the exponent or cooperate with them.

Posted by Dyfrig (# 15) on :

Merseymike,

for a clue as to Mr e's tendencies, I suggest you look here.

{elaborated URL}

[ 24. October 2002, 16:33: Message edited by: tomb ]

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :

eh ? he sure isn't an anglo-catholic!!

Mike

Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
I notice that eleighteen still hasn't responded to my question.

Are you a 'lone wolf, or do you belong to a worshipping congregatin which would broadly share your perspective?

The point is that Chick presents a view which, irrespective of style, bears no resemblance to any sort of Christianity that I would want to believe in.

That is undoubtedly the reaction of most others too.

Well, it's irrelevent to the thread, but I have so little to do at work...

I semi-regularly attend church(es) where (I guess that) the congregation shares the belief that salvation is through the grace of God, through the sacrifice of his Son as outlined in Holy Scripture. All else is nit-picking, and I'm not sure I like the sound of a church where all "must broadly agree" on issues extra to this.

I've given none of my views on this thread (appart from my occasional annoyance with evangelicals). If you follow Dyfrig's link to the bottom of page four you are left with the revelatory information that I have a preference for Cranmer liturgy and traditional hymns, and am curious about Anglo-Catholic worship. Draw from that what you will.

Now can we please return to Jack Chick.

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :

Found it - at the end of page 4.

Quite what the BCP has to do with Chick is another matter.
It worries me more that he is in Liverpool and I may have met him if he visited our A/C church! I know a church just like the one he is looking for, but I wouldn't want to inflict him upon them.....

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by da_musicman:

quote:
Originally posted by sarkycow:
Trip trap trip trap.
Could that be the sound of a Dead Horse Lurching over the Old Wooden Bridge?

Into the mouth of a waiting Alligator who's feeling a bit peckish [Big Grin]

Tubbs

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

Just spotted this ...

quote:
I'd simply laugh it off with a hearty "HawHawHaw!" It's strange how Chick's... ..erm.. fantastic claims rile Catholics so much.. ...you know they really touch a nerve... ..odd for things that are all total fabrications.

Maybe if you had someone who invested that much time and energy into discrediting something you hold dear you'd get really "riled" too. Catholics who accept Jesus as their Saviour and Lord ARE Christians. They don't need saving as they are already are saved.

Tubbs

Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :

[Roll Eyes]

Mike (and others), for the last time.

You don't know what my views are. This thread is about whether Jack Chick - in the grand scheme of things - does some good in the world at large. Not whether you agree with his views or not. I happen to think Chick does some good but that doesn't mean I share all of his views.

You can't even read what I've posted on the "AC for beginners" thread. I've never attended an Anglo-Catholic sevice, so don't worry, you've never met me (I can assure you I am charming in the flesh). I attend a church close to my home (there are about six of various denominations within five minutes walk - I'm not one of those people who drives halfway across town to find the right "fellowship").

Unfortunately there are no ACs, and as someone relatively new to Christianity I'd like to sample what they are about. So I may see you if you go to Tuebrook and I visit there sometime. I look forward to a nice Christian welcome. [Big Grin]

Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
I'd simply laugh it off with a hearty "HawHawHaw!" It's strange how Chick's... ..erm.. fantastic claims rile Catholics so much.. ...you know they really touch a nerve... ..odd for things that are all total fabrications.

Ok, well, you're clearly either a troll or not very bright. If someone accuses my mother of being an adulterer, or my father of being a paedophile, I will be riled because I know the accusations to be false and malicious, not because "I must have something to hide."

I'm not wasting any more time on this thread.

Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Just spotted this ...

quote:
I'd simply laugh it off with a hearty "HawHawHaw!" It's strange how Chick's... ..erm.. fantastic claims rile Catholics so much.. ...you know they really touch a nerve... ..odd for things that are all total fabrications.
Maybe if you had someone who invested that much time and energy into discrediting something you hold dear you'd get really "riled" too.
Tubbs

Actually I think I'd be flattered

quote:
Catholics who accept Jesus as their Saviour and Lord ARE Christians. They don't need saving as they are already are saved.

Like I said, I hope so for their sake. Jack Chick dosen't believe so, and doesn't want to take any chances that their souls might perish in the lake of fire. Ask yourself this, wouldn't it be a lot easier for Chick to let this happen - a lot less trouble in his life.

Posted by LatinMan (# 1892) on :

quote:
My opinions on the Roman Church are irrelevant to this debate, my point is you damn Chick on the basis of just one part of his literature.

Anyone who has followed Chick's work over time will note that anti-Catholicism has been a growing theme. In fact, several older tracts have apparently been revised to give them an anti-Catholic spin.

quote:
I'd simply laugh it off with a hearty "HawHawHaw!" It's strange how Chick's... ..erm.. fantastic claims rile Catholics so much.. ...you know they really touch a nerve... ..odd for things that are all total fabrications.

If Chick's attacks on Catholicism were simply theological, we would probably not be discussing him here. But when he moves into the realms of (weird) conspiracy theories blaming the Pope and the Jesuits for every evil that has occured in the history of Western Civilization, including the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy, the rise of Islam, Communism, and National Socialism, and claiming that large parts of Catholic ritual and practice derives from pre-Christian paganism, then it should be no surprise that Catholics get riled.

And the fact that Chick really and sincerely believes in all this clap-trap is tragic. And frustrating, because there can be no dialogue.

(Note to self: get new avatar...)

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

And it's not merely Roman Catholicism -- it's everything.

He does not hold dialogue with his opponents; he makes absurd claims about their histories and about history in general. And it's not that he believes that some or many or even most will be damned -- he treats the commitment to Christ purely in terms of whether someone has technically heard the words and said the prayer. "But Bob, you were told on June 25, 1974 that Jesus was the only way to salvation, and you laughed!" Chick treats God as legalistic and unloving -- one can believe that many are damned without believing that God could care less, but the tone of the bloody tracts is always God as light-bulb-headed-judge, faceless, and exclusively concerned with "did person A say the prayer? Right, he's in Heaven, or he's in The Lake Of Fire." It's entirely a matter of whether you've checked off the right box on the "did you pray the prayer?" form.

Chick makes a host of wild allegations about pretty much everything in his tracts. They're all there at his web site. "Chick Tracts get read," yes, and mocked heartily. If it wasn't for them turning people away from Jesus I'd laugh more at them.

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :

Basic hostly reminder:

This thread is about Chick's views and beliefs, no one elses'. Whether a shipmate is a christian or not, or what particular brand they are is not a matter to speculate upon out loud.

Goddit?

Viki, hellhost

PS And eleighteen - no, you don't have to be a christian to register and post on these boards, ok?

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

[CONTINUE TANGENT]

quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
Anyone who looks at my profile will notice that I put 'none' in the 'Religion or Denomination' section. I put this because I was not brought up in any religious tradition, do not currently attend any church, and, even if I did, am not sure that I would wish to define myself in this way.

Welcome to Agnostic Zen Nihilism. Here is your required copy of "The Complete Calvin & Hobbes", here's a key to the lavatory round back of Dirk Gentley's Detective Agency, and your platypus will be sent via courier swallow (African, naturally).

[/DISCONTINUE TANGENT]

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

If I understand Eleighteen's view correctly, no historical claims beyond the dates of events are provable, and therefore one is entitled to make any historical claim whatsoever. I think this is obviously nonsense. I also think it is pretty obvious that (at minimum) 75% of what Jack Chick says about the Roman Catholic Church is false. Yet he persists in claiming these things. To my mind, this presents three possibilities:

1) He is extremely stupid and can't tell truth from falsehood.
2) He is mentally ill and can't tell truth from falsehood.
3) He is telling lies to achieve some purpose

Of there three possibilities, I think the third is the only interesting one. So, for the sake of argument, let's say that Mr. Chick is deliberately telling falsehoods about Roman Catholics in order to achieve some goal. And let's say that goal is (as eleighteen claims) the laudable one of saving Roman Catholics from the fires of hell. Is Mr. Chick still justified in telling lies? Is saying that the Catholic Eucharist is descended from Egyptian rites justified by the desire to prevent Catholics from engaging in idolatrous worship of the Eucharist? Is it sort of like telling your son that if he masturbates he'll go blind -- i.e. you are convinced that masturbation is wrong, so you tell your child something untrue to prevent him (or her) from doing it?

My own bias is that the God of truth is never served by untruth. But I'd be interested in knowing what other folks think.

FCB

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

Sorry, the last post wasn't vary hellish.

How about this:

Jack Chick is an asshole who likes the idea that most of the world will spend eternity in a lake of fire.

FCB

Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :

quote:
. If someone accuses my father of being a paedophile, I will be riled because I know the accusations to be false and malicious, not because "I must have something to hide."

An unfortunate analogy for a Catholic to draw, in more ways than one. (Actually, Priestly sexual hypocrisy is one thing Chick hasn't attacked Rome on, probably because he is a fair man and realises it is a problem across all denominations.)

In today's ridiculously child-centred world, mere accusations of paedophilia can bring forth terrible consequences for the accused: loss of job, threats of physical violence, even long terms in prison remand (remember the - completely innocent - Newcastle nursery nurses a few years back?)

The worst a Chick tract can do is make a Roman Catholic examine his faith, and as they are apparently such rubbish this can only be strengthened by such an encounter. (Although a reading of a Catholic apologetics website attacking Chick tracts, actually hardened my previously neutral views of the RCC.)

Chick doesn't call for violence against Catholics, or for them to lose their jobs, or freedom of worship. He just thinks they are misguided. It's not as if the Roman church doesn't try to recruit prots, or describe itself as the only true path to salvation.

You know, I really don't get why you people have it in for Jack? As if a small independent publishing house from southern California can take on the might of the Vatican and a church which has one sixth of the globe as adherents? Talk about David and Goliath! The more Papists splutter and rage, the more I suspect that amongst the outlandish claims Jack is onto something big.

quote:
I'm not wasting any more time on this thread.

Goodbye. Try not to choke on your death cookies. I wouldn't want you to play a premature visit to the lake of fire. HAWHAWHAW!

Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :

quote:
Anyone who has followed Chick's work over time will note that anti-Catholicism has been a growing theme. In fact, several older tracts have apparently been revised to give them an anti-Catholic spin.

AFAIK, Chick published little on Catholicism until meeting Alberto Rivera (a former Jesuit who had the job of infiltrating the protestant church etc. etc. etc.) in the late 1970's. The controversial nature of Rivera's revelations put Chick in a difficult position, as they could potentially alientate him from the Christian mainstream (Chick tracts and books were very popular in Christian bookstores). As it happens Chick lost two thirds of his business after publishing Alberto, and I dare say some of those who post on Ship-of-Fools may be handing Chicklets out today if he hadn't.

The fact he went through with it, after much prayer, points to the sincerity of the man. If he didn't believe Rivera, why would he put his effective ministry in such danger. The continous success of Chick publishing despite being shunned by the many Christians can only confirm JTC's sense of being right - I guess this is why he re-writes old tracts to get a few digs in at the RCC.

quote:
And it's not that he believes that some or many or even most will be damned -- he treats the commitment to Christ purely in terms of whether someone has technically heard the words and said the prayer. "But Bob, you were told on June 25, 1974 that Jesus was the only way to salvation, and you laughed!" Chick treats God as legalistic and unloving -- one can believe that many are damned without believing that God could care less, but the tone of the bloody tracts is always God as light-bulb-headed-judge, faceless, and exclusively concerned with "did person A say the prayer? Right, he's in Heaven, or he's in The Lake Of Fire."

Again, apart from his style of delivery, how does this differ from (say) CS Lewis, or other regular Christians. I remember from my Durham University days, DICCU running talks such as "Hell, is that fair?" (That would make a great Chick tract title now I think of it).

If University CUs are a bit strong for you, how about conversations I had with the vicar prior to my baptism in an MOR C-of-E church. "Well what about those who don't here the gospel"?
"Everyone has a chance to hear the gospel, it's just the individual has to choose Jesus, otherwise God wouldn't be loving"
"What about someone whose brought up a Muslim, or lived before Christ?"
"It's a difficult one for a Christian's conscience, but it says in the Bible the only way to God is through Jesus?"
"What about my relatives, are they heading for hell?"
"Difficult again, that is why we must pray every day for those we love to Come-to-Christ" [Projectile]

In the end I went home, read the Bible and - with the help of the Holy Spirit - made my own mind up.

Either you reject all the views described above or you are hypocritical in attacking Chick's view of God. Which is it?

Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :

quote:
Anyone who has followed Chick's work over time will note that anti-Catholicism has been a growing theme. In fact, several older tracts have apparently been revised to give them an anti-Catholic spin.

quote:
And it's not that he believes that some or many or even most will be damned -- he treats the commitment to Christ purely in terms of whether someone has technically heard the words and said the prayer. "But Bob, you were told on June 25, 1974 that Jesus was the only way to salvation, and you laughed!" Chick treats God as legalistic and unloving -- one can believe that many are damned without believing that God could care less, but the tone of the bloody tracts is always God as light-bulb-headed-judge, faceless, and exclusively concerned with "did person A say the prayer? Right, he's in Heaven, or he's in The Lake Of Fire."

Posted by Rhisiart (# 69) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
An unfortunate analogy for a Catholic to draw, in more ways than one. (Actually, Priestly sexual hypocrisy is one thing Chick hasn't attacked Rome on, probably because he is a fair man and realises it is a problem across all denominations.)

As comments go, that is as below the belt as they come. The vast majority of sexual abuse occurs within the family, so by definition unmarried priests are rather less likely to commit such abuse. Or are you positing the theory that celibate=homosexual=paedophile - in which case, I suggest you go and get the traditional asbestos underwear pretty quickly.

quote:
The worst a Chick tract can do is make a Roman Catholic examine his faith, and as they are apparently such rubbish this can only be strengthened by such an encounter. (Although a reading of a Catholic apologetics website attacking Chick tracts, actually hardened my previously neutral views of the RCC.)

Really? Anything that encourages people to believe that fellow-Christians are damned, rather than treat them as travellers on the same journey to God, has a pretty bad effect. And as you are apparently in Liverpool, look to your Irish and Scottish neighbours to see what can happen by encouraging one group of Christians to believe that another is damned - or is the history of Ireland, transported to Glasgow and Liverpool, not one that you consider authentic?

quote:
You know, I really don't get why you people have it in for Jack? As if a small independent publishing house from southern California can take on the might of the Vatican and a church which has one sixth of the globe as adherents? Talk about David and Goliath! The more Papists splutter and rage, the more I suspect that amongst the outlandish claims Jack is onto something big.

So I presume you have no trouble believing that the US government is in regular contact with aliens, that the moon landings were faked, and that the Royal Family (as evidenced earlier on this thread) are in fact giant lizards? The fact that someone denies allegations, no matter how outrageous, must mean that there is something in them? Give me strength...

Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
An unfortunate analogy for a Catholic to draw, in more ways than one. (Actually, Priestly sexual hypocrisy is one thing Chick hasn't attacked Rome on, probably because he is a fair man and realises it is a problem across all denominations.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As comments go, that is as below the belt as they come. The vast majority of sexual abuse occurs within the family, so by definition unmarried priests are rather less likely to commit such abuse. Or are you positing the theory that celibate=homosexual=paedophile

You directly quote me yet still mis-read my post. After a vaguely topical and feeble bit of wit, I was pointing out that the "anti-Catholic bigot" Chick avoids taking cheap shots at the RCC by avoiding references to allegations of priestly child-abuse and bastard legacies.

I then qualify this by saying this is not an problem exclusive to the RCC (or the Church in general). My wife has told me some stories about evangelical youth group leaders(again, not meaning to taint that group)... Still, Rome's response to recent paedophile allegations leaves something to be desired - I think even JesuitLad would agree on that one.

quote:
Really? Anything that encourages people to believe that fellow-Christians are damned, rather than treat them as travellers on the same journey to God, has a pretty bad effect.

I know it's heavily qualified, but to this heretic it appears the RCC cathechism do something similar? And (with huge apologies if I've got this completely wrong) doesn't one of the articles of the CofE state that the Pope is the AntiChrist?

quote:
And as you are apparently in Liverpool, look to your Irish and Scottish neighbours to see what can happen by encouraging one group of Christians to believe that another is damned

The slightest knowledge of British history will tell you this is slightly more than differences in doctrine between denominations. (I am currently reading through the second book in Simon Schama's excellent "History of Britain", maybe you could do the same)

quote:
So I presume you have no trouble believing that the US government is in regular contact with aliens, that the moon landings were faked, and that the Royal Family (as evidenced earlier on this thread) are in fact giant lizards? The fact that someone denies allegations, no matter how outrageous, must mean that there is something in them?

No, but if (otherwise apparently sane) royals and monarchists devoted huge amounts of time and resources denouncing the man who made the lizard allegations.... and had to proof every last allegation made was wrong.. ..made frequent ad hominen attacks.. ..and tried to prevent him having a voice, and even attempted assisination.. ...then.. ..I would look at the nutty man who cried lizard and think.. .."well there might be something there"

Posted by Rhisiart (# 69) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:

quote:
And as you are apparently in Liverpool, look to your Irish and Scottish neighbours to see what can happen by encouraging one group of Christians to believe that another is damned
The slightest knowledge of British history will tell you this is slightly more than differences in doctrine between denominations. (I am currently reading through the second book in Simon Schama's excellent "History of Britain", maybe you could do the same)

Known in this part of the British Isles as 'History of England', given that it has a pretty poor grasp of events or issues that impacted on the other nations of the UK. I watched the entire series, sunshine. As ever, please don't presume that a shipmate is not, in fact, fully versed in whatever it is you are trying to 'teach' them. And don't tell a Welshman of Irish heritage that he has misunderstood the past five hundred years or the importance of religion to the tragedy of Irish history. [Mad]

[Must be annoyed, started a sentence with 'and']

Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :

Irish heritage? Good grief! I thought only Americans came out with such guff. As for religion, that was often an excuse for the politics, and JC sure as heck should be kept out of that...

OK. I'm a bit bored with defending Jack Chick's outlandish claims about the papacy. I'm away for the weekend. If anyone is still reading this thread, please could you address my assertion that the basic teachings of Chick differ little from CS Lewis (satanic influenced ecumism apart) or the Alpha course; they're merely presented in a more forthright style.

Please convice me you are not hypocrites by explaining the difference between your views on the sinner choosing/rejecting Jesus and going to heaven/hell, and Jack Chick's.

And please acknowledge that presenting the gospel in these little, high-quality, cartoons is (regardless of their content) ruddy brilliant.

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :

It is bad manners, Eleighteen, to insult large groups of people on the Ship (including "Americans who come up with such guff") then announce that you will be "away for the weekend."

Might I suggest that you exert yourself to repair your reputation on the Ship? else you might find yourself pretty much a pariah by the time you return from your weekend away....

tomb
hellhost

Posted by Lou Poulain (# 1587) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
And please acknowledge that presenting the gospel in these little, high-quality, cartoons is (regardless of their content) ruddy brilliant.

Sorry elieghteen, but I see little Good News in those trashy throw away tracts. If that were the sum and substance of the Gospel of Jesus, I would be running hard the other direction! We have other examples of rigid narrow thinking to contend with here in America as well.

[tangential rant]
There's an asshole preacher from Topeka Kansas named Phelps who is flying out to California with some of his toadies this weekend with the avowed intention of "disrupting" the funeral of a transgendered youth who was beaten and strangled by three young men a week ago. His proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus, emblazened on their picket signs, reads "God Hates Fags." At the funeral of Matthew Shephard, they toted signs that read "Matthew is in Hell." They have invaded numerous funerals in San Francisco, of AIDS victims with their "preaching" of God's eternally punitive disfavor towards gays. Their little dog and pony show will be back in the bay area to "disrupt" two high school theatre productions of "The Laramie Project" in November. What a powerful powerful anti-evangelistic force they have made themselves!

[rant ended]

... and so has Jack Chick, spouting his offensive conspiratorial nonsensical crap.

Yeah, sure, he's winning lots of souls for Christ (not)!

Lou

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
Again, apart from his style of delivery, how does this differ from (say) CS Lewis, or other regular Christians

Because Lewis (who I make no secret of being my main teacher, via his books) doesn't subscribe to ... well, most of Chick's stuff. He even suggests that while all who saved are saved via Christ, it does not therefore follow that only those who have heard of Him are saved by Him. (Chick lists Lewis (along with Tolkien) as an "occultist" in one tract, which is amusingly bizarre, by the way.)

Once again, it's not really just "Chick picks on Roman Catholics" -- he says a lot of fairly outlandish things about a lot of people.

Posted by Amanuensis (# 1555) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
No, but if (otherwise apparently sane) royals and monarchists devoted huge amounts of time and resources denouncing the man who made the lizard allegations.... and had to proof every last allegation made was wrong.. ..made frequent ad hominen attacks.. ..and tried to prevent him having a voice, and even attempted assisination.. ...then.. ..I would look at the nutty man who cried lizard and think.. .."well there might be something there"

Has the Pope tried to assassinate Chick?
or does that read "assinisation"? (a little known alternative to canonization).

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
If anyone is still reading this thread, please could you address my assertion that the basic teachings of Chick differ little from CS Lewis (satanic influenced ecumism apart) or the Alpha course; they're merely presented in a more forthright style.

Along with my post above, Lewis also did not teach that one should be, once one accepts Christ, absolutely certain of going to Heaven. He even believed in (or was open to) a kind of Purgatory -- a sort of in-between period, not of paying for one's sins, but of being cleansed of them and their effects, rather like having one's mouth rinsed out after going to the dentist (when the tooth of this life has been pulled, as it were). He gave examples both in fiction (in one of the Narnia books) and in his theology works of people who might be led by Christ to come as close to Him as their culture allowed them to understand, and to be saved in the end by Him -- certainly not something Chick would approve of.

quote:
Please convice me you are not hypocrites by explaining the difference between your views on the sinner choosing/rejecting Jesus and going to heaven/hell, and Jack Chick's.

Chick depicts God more as a legalistic judge -- for example, in this one, "Hi There!" and also in this one, "This Was Your Life!" -- than as loving. Mind you -- I do believe in Hell -- even that in the end, many more will be there than redeemed. I don't think Chick is more forthright about it at all; I think he depicts God in a way which leaves out His love. The whole approach makes Heaven out to be more or less a kind of bureacracy ("NEXT!" cries the voice from off-camera; Lewis depicted Hell as a bureaucracy (in the Screwtape Letters), interestingly enough). In the world of the Chick tract, God seems mainly concerned with results -- will the person say the magic words and push the "faith" button, or not? rather than with developing a real relationship with us.

One view of Lewis' which makes sense to me, though it is not an absolute tenet of mine, is that the fires of Hell are the same thing as the firey love of God -- but those in Hell are shut against His love rather than open to it, so it burns, and burns them eternally, because now that all illusions and false appearances are off, they cannot stop perceiving Him, they cannot escape it, yet they don't want His love, or to trust Him, or to have faith, living in a state of permanent, painful rejection of Him. This is the best theory I have yet heard of how it works. And I have since heard that it is the standard doctrine on the matter in Eastern Orthodoxy, which lends quite a lot of credence to it for me; it also explains how God can be loving and also allow people to be in Hell, because the door to Hell is locked on the inside, by the damned themselves -- it is not a matter of them, after death, begging God to forgive them and Him refusing, saying, "you had your chance, off with you into perdition" -- it is that they choose, eternally, to say "no" to Him, and if once they would open the door and say yes, even if it took millions of years, He would joyfully take them into His loving care, but they do not, and, from His point of view outside Time, He knows that they (freely, always) will not.

I don't see that as the same as Chick at all.

quote:
And please acknowledge that presenting the gospel in these little, high-quality, cartoons is (regardless of their content) ruddy brilliant.

"presenting the gospel " -- well, see above.
"little" -- well, I must grant that, yes.
"high-quality" -- at last I can use this smiley: -- sorry, no. Heck, half the time he rips off other people's artwork, including, ironically, Durer and TSR's own copyrighted material.
"cartoons" -- I like comics. A lot. Religious-themed ones, if done well, would be great. But this guy isn't exactly Alan Moore, is he?

There.

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :

I'm with CM on this. The important thing here is not where Chick agrees or disagrees with Lewis, or any one else you chose to pick. Since they are workin within a Christian context there are bound to be similarities at times (carefully phrased to avoid saying that antone is, or is not, a Christain). What matters here is the tone, IMHO. You can believe in Hell , and weep for those going there, you can believe in Hell and gloat because those who disagree with you will suffer for eternity. Chick seems to fall into the latter category. He is not the only one - many Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox down through the centuries have done the same - but I find it unedifying wherever it occurs.

And since I'm typing, I found this arguemnt extraordinary:

quote:
if (otherwise apparently sane) royals and monarchists devoted huge amounts of time and resources denouncing the man who made the lizard allegations.... and had to proof every last allegation made was wrong.. ..made frequent ad hominen attacks.. ..and tried to prevent him having a voice, and even attempted assisination.. ...then.. ..I would look at the nutty man who cried lizard and think.. .."well there might be something there"

Most RCs would not know that Chick existed. I hadn't seen one of his tracts since the mid 70s, and had assumed they had died out years ago until meeting them again on the Ship. I don't think that the huge apperatus of the Magesterium wastes much time worrying about Chick, and that would be because his claims are so absurd. (Most of those posting on this thread are not RCs, just Christians concerned when other Christians are defamed.) But I would like to know more about the assasination attempt - this sounds fascinating.

Posted by Slubgob (# 3034) on :

quote:

Orignally posted by Eleighteen
Please convice me you are not hypocrites by explaining the difference between your views on the sinner choosing/rejecting Jesus and going to heaven/hell, and Jack Chick's.

Choose Jesus? Fine, got no problem with that. Unfortunately Jack Chick's take on this seems to be "choose Jesus (or you'll burn in hell, forever, heretic!)". There doesn't seem to be anything there about counting the cost, and I can find precious little about God's love for us, except as a kind of emotional blackmail ("God loved you so much that he sent his Son to die for you so that you don't have to go to hell!" - there's nothing wrong per se with this sentiment, but the view that Jesus died solely to stop us going to hell seems to me to be a recurring theme in Chick tracts, and also seems to be a massive understatement of the purpose of the Incarnation and Crucifixion).

There's rarely anything there about a relationship; you pray the prayer, you press the magic button, hey presto, you're saved and that's it. If you haven't prayed the prayer, whoops, sorry, you're damned. Won't you feel bad because you've rejected God's Son? (Well of course you'll feel bad, after all, you'll be swimming in sulphur at this point).

Note that the emphasis in the tracts always seems to be on hell, on the threat of judgement, never on the positive love of God. We're not told what we will get if we do accept Christ; just how we'll be punished if we don't.

How do my views on salvation differ from Chick's is, I believe, the question I'm supposed to be answering. The major disagreement is with his emphasis. The story as told by a Chick tract seems to be get born, get saved, die, go to heaven. Or get born, don't get saved, die, go to hell. As far as Chick is concerned, the wonder and mystery of the Incarnation are somebody else's problem; the indications of the love God has for us inherent in the sacrifice made by Jesus are irrelevant, because all that matters is that you accept it so that you don't go to hell. Life is just there as a sort of prelude; how you live doesn't matter, as long as you've accepted Christ.

{chose to fix your UBB code}

[ 26. October 2002, 19:41: Message edited by: tomb ]

Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :

Thankyou all for your replies.

LouPoulain It is very unfair to compare Jack Chick to "GodHateFags". Chick sees homosexuals as dead in their sins, in need of help from their self-destructive ways. There is no hate for them and, AFAIK gays in the tracts all find Jesus and not one has the pleasure of a pitchfork up his jacksie in the LOF (Matt 25.41). And Chick tract's might not offer the sum of the gospel, but the tiniest amount of it would be welcome to the vast secular majority in the UK (at least until some non churchgoers attend an Alpha course [Wink]

)

ChastMastr If Lewis says that not only those that have heard of Christ are saved by him I apologise. That is not the impression I got reading "Mere Christianity" (I must admit the blasted book did bounce off the wall several times during reading but perhaps that says more about me). Maybe he used the oft-repeated "any exposure to the gospel at all is knowing of then rejecting Christ argument". A universalist he was not however.

Chick's depiction of heaven/hell versus Lewis' probably reflects the fact the former has to get his message over in a short cartoon, aimed at a less educated audience; rather than write hundreds of pages of turgid prose. Unless one takes a universalist view of salvation, there will come a point where one will face the consequences of your lack of repentence. And if you read scripture, God will be judging all those personally. The faceless Christ is a wonderfully powerful piece of artistic expression, I'm sure you will all agree.

Lewis' belief in the deeply Biblical doctrine of purgatory stretches his credibility in my eyes; though maybe only to be expected from a writer of inferior children's fantasy and closet Roman Catholic.

As for your other points. Fred Carter is one of the best comic artists out there, anywhere. As for Chick's own art, at his cartoony best (e.g. "The Death Cookie" ) it has an amusing style that, reminds me a bit of Chris and Simon Donald at Viz. Who are Durer and TSR? Can you tell me of any other decent religious comics? (All the non-Chick ones I have seen were dire.)

TheWanderer Nowhere in Chick's publications does he gloat at people going to hell (if he wished to gloat he wouldn't publish his tracts would he?). I don't think any Christian would, and I would appreciate a retraction of this comment.

Showing the consequences of a failure to repent, knowing some people may take offence, seems more loving than simply not making the effort. Perhaps this is what you would rather he do?

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Are you trolling by any chance, Eleighteen?

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :

Oh dear. In my last post I tried so hard to be kind and tactful to everyone, so that I couldn't give offence to anyone, and it seems I failed:

quote:
TheWanderer Nowhere in Chick's publications does he gloat at people going to hell (if he wished to gloat he wouldn't publish his tracts would he?). I don't think any Christian would, and I would appreciate a retraction of this comment.

Well, I've tried politeness, so let me use a more hellish tone:

Jack Chick's tract are arrogant, selfrighteous, badly designed and executed, complete and utter shite! And they display a hatred of the vast majority of the world's Christians, which is deeply repulsive.

Sorry, need some practise to be more cutting - Rook or Tomb, if you could give me some pointers, I would appreciate it. And I still want to know about the assasination attempt . . .

Posted by linzc (# 2914) on :

Gosh, the last Chick thread I started got turfed off to Dead Horses quick smart. Let me throw in my two cents worth. (And in case I need to show my bona-fides, I have been collecting Chick comics since I was 12 and agreed with them, right till the present [39 if you must know], when I disagree with them violently but still find them addictively disturbing).

Re: quality. Chick comics are what they are. Their particular quality is part of the package - small format, line drawn (mostly), quirkish. To claim that they are poor quality is incorrect and missing the point. To claim they are great art is grounds for insanity.

Re: gloating. Of course it's true that we never see the faceless God laughing at those who he sends to the LOF - even JTC wouldn't be that crass. But there is clearly an element of smugness which comes out either in the angel's reply to the poor sucker who says "Are we on our way to see Mary now?", or in the poor sucker's gulp and "I think I'm in trouble now", or in the devil prodding the poor sucker with a pitchfork and saying "You blew it".

ISTM that the issue with Chicklets is not whether his theology is unique (clearly it isn't), but whether the extremely abbreviated form in which it is displayed, along with the pointedness of his targets (lets face it, gays, Catholics and witches get a lot more stick from JTC than corporate bigwigs, selfish schoolmoms, gouging small businessmen etc etc) makes it so much of a charicature that it does more harm than good.

Further, re:the specifically Catholic comics, the use of dodgy facts and unprovable, laughable allegations simply portrays Christians as being thick, intellectually dishonest bigots.

My two cents worth.

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :

The worst Christian publications show at least some lip service to reason and scholarship. Very few descend to the most primitive and base forms of propaganda put out by totalitarian regimes. Here, the only purpose is to take control of the mind of the reader by appeals to the basest human emotions. These despicable propagandists justify their techniques on the basis that they are the most efficient means of eliciting the desired behavior from the target audience. Truth is not the point, but control.

“One day, Bob Hammond, missionary broadcaster of The Voice of China and Asia, told Jack that multitudes of Chinese people had been won to Communism through mass distribution of cartoon booklets. Jack felt that God was leading him to use the same technique to win multitudes to the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Indeed. By his own admission, Jack Chick does not emulate Christian writers like C.S. Lewis. He emulates Chinese Communist propaganda from World War II and he does it admirably well. I am a humanist and no particular knee-jerk defender of Christianity. I looked at several of Chick’s cartoons and am comfortable in pronouncing them swill.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
he treats the commitment to Christ purely in terms of whether someone has technically heard the words and said the prayer.

Well that's alright then, because there will be words in the Roman mass that count as the prayer [Smile]

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :

Given the irenical posting style of brother el18, is there any chance that he is actually BlaizePascal (aks Shaitan) in one of his multifarious disguises? Just a thought? [Two face]

Posted by duchess [green] (# 2764) on :

As a Calvinist, I am appalled at the sinner's prayer. I do not see any grace in that, any of God's awaking in the heart.

I laugh too much when I read Jack's comics but then I feel guilty since I feel like I may be laughing at somebody's expense.

One good thing they did was to make me research a few things and know that albeit I don't agree with Catholics, I know they don't worship Mary as a diety (they give respect), they pray to saints because it's backed up in the Deutocanical (sp?) Books, so is purgatory and indulgences...

A little bit of poison poisons the whole well. I wish it were as simple and easy as just making people pray the sinner's prayer (I'd find a way to force my whole family) but it must come from the heart and only God has control over that. In that realm I disagree with Protestants more than Catholics (who see faith in Jesus as a gift of grace)...kind of ironic.

The sinner's prayer is great...if somebody already is seeking God. If not, it is pointless to have someone pray it.

C.S. Lewis was not an inerrantist (and I am) since he believed (correct me somebody here if I am wrong, going by stuff I read awhile ago) that basically God is too nice and loving to be as mean as He is depicted in the bible. C.S. Lewis drank and smoked too. He still gets kudos from my kind (errantists).

Jack Chick seems to be an errantist but his view of Scripture disturbs me. [Darth Vader]

I have a headache now...I am staying out of here.

Posted by duchess [green] (# 2764) on :

dang ...

MY KIND is inerrantist.

gulp. what an error to make. [brick wall]

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by duchess [green]:
C.S. Lewis was not an inerrantist (and I am) since he believed (correct me somebody here if I am wrong, going by stuff I read awhile ago) that basically God is too nice and loving to be as mean as He is depicted in the bible. C.S. Lewis drank and smoked too.

Well -- not quite an inerrantist in the sola scriptura sense, no, but not quite that God is not as depicted in the Bible. I think Jack saw God as both merciful and just, from the Bible and from other sources. And yes, he drank and smoked as well. [Smile]

Posted by duchess [green] (# 2764) on :

Char...I think we killed it! We killed it!

This thread is DEAD!

Woo-hoo! YES!!!

YEA US! [Not worthy!]

Posted by LatinMan (# 1892) on :

"Mind of Chick"

It sounds like an ingredient in a witch's brew.

Happy Halloween!

(And doesn't JTC have a tract about that?)

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

Eleighteen asked if there were any other decent [Killing me]

religious comics that people had seen (actually, I think it was addressed to ChastMastr, but being a decent guy maybe he won't mind me jumping in...).

Does anyone know of the PIX comics? I used to get these every week at Sunday School. An eight-page booklet usually had an episode from the Bible presented as cartoons, and as well there would be story with a Christian moral (oh goody), or else some Christian history, like the translation of the Bible. I just looked it up on Google and was surprised to see it started in 1949!

Posted by LatinMan (# 1892) on :

The Franciscan Friars of Marytown commissioned a comic book on the life of St. Maximilian Kolbe titled Soldier of God. I don't know if it is still available.

A few years back, Marvel Comics (I think) ran some comic books depicting the lives of Pope John Paul II and Mother Theresa of Calcutta. Again, I don't know if these are still available.

Someone has put out The Big Book of Martyrs in which a variety of comic book artists depicted the lives and deaths of various saints, each in a different artist's style.

Boys' Life, the official magazine of the Boy Scouts of America, had a comics section. There was a comic book rendition of a portion of the Bible in every issue, and back in the 1970s, there was a series of comics explaining the various badges and medals, sponsored by various religious communities, that scouts could earn.

I am sure that the Bible has been done in comic book form on more than one occasion.

The idea of presenting the Bible and religous themes in a comic book/graphic novel format is a good one. However, I think what is needed is a person who is a good artist in the genre, and also someone who believes in the work to carry it out well.

Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LatinMan:
The Franciscan Friars of Marytown commissioned a comic book on the life of St. Maximilian Kolbe titled Soldier of God. I don't know if it is still available.

A few years back, Marvel Comics (I think) ran some comic books depicting the lives of Pope John Paul II and Mother Theresa of Calcutta. Again, I don't know if these are still available.

Someone has put out The Big Book of Martyrs in which a variety of comic book artists depicted the lives and deaths of various saints, each in a different artist's style.

I wanted to know about Christian comic books LatinMan. Christian.

Posted by LatinMan (# 1892) on :

Eleighteen,

I will not dignify your comment with a reply.

Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :

Hey! [Embarrassed]

LatinMan I'm joking.... ...I'm a bit skittish 'cos my Jack Appreciation thread was Matt25.41-ed by the Heaven moderator.

Do you know where I can read these cartoon tributes to famous Romanists on line? Ditto those PIX things? I'll attack them with an open mind but they'll have to go some to beat the sheer quality and entertainment value of Chick.

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :

{hostly advisory}

eleighteen: please use smilies to help people avoid misunderstanding you. Once people get the hang of your humor, you can drop them, but I think their judicial use might ease your assimilation into this community.

Thank you.

{/hostly advisory}

[ 01. November 2002, 15:54: Message edited by: tomb ]

Posted by Paul W (# 1450) on :

Well, there's a Left Behind comic available. I saw it at Wesley Owen one time.

Oops, sorry, you said decent comics. [Razz]

Preacher, by Garth Ennis, has a religious theme, but I don't think it'd really be your thing.

And there's always Battle Pope, but I don't think that's what you were after either.

Can't think of anything else off the top of my head.

Paul W

Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :

Yes, but using smilies does somewhat telegraph dry "wit" (which I think would be a generous term applied to most of my posts). I thought it was fundies who were meant to take everything literally.

The dislike of Chick on these boards may my humour may always appear a little warped. However, although he makes me laugh and I don't neccesarily agree with his views, I will defend Chick as a... (cough!) brother in Christ. Just because he doesn't share every one of your liberal views doesn't mean he's not out there doing God's work. Jack is not right on everything, as we all know, no man is infallible

I read a review of a biography of John Wesley in the Sunday papers a few weeks back. An extremely strange man by all accounts. God doesn't always use squeaky-clean Mr Reasonables like Reverand Wonderful Billy Graham.

New tract out today by the way. Chick at 80 is still down with the kids, very realistic obnoxious skaters swearing at adults. The real challenge would be to do one for the tracksuited youth of Britain. Perhaps I could drop him a line...

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5018/5018_01.asp?FROM=bibleseries

Bit dissapointed, no hawhawhaws ,lightbulb headed God, lake of fire or digs at the HRCC. On the other hand that means it's a tract I'd consider passing out. Gets a (righteous) dig in at homosexuals, that might help one of today's brainswashed youth. Not-PC, but only objectionable to a really tetchy queen.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

If he can have Battle Pope then he can have Nemesis the Warlock and the ABC Warriors.

There's preachers in it...

Posted by LatinMan (# 1892) on :

quote:
Hey! LatinMan I'm joking.... ...I'm a bit skittish 'cos my Jack Appreciation thread was Matt25.41-ed by the Heaven moderator.

Fair enough.

quote:
Do you know where I can read these cartoon tributes to famous Romanists on line? Ditto those PIX things? I'll attack them with an open mind but they'll have to go some to beat the sheer quality and entertainment value of Chick.

Except for the Amazon link, which is for purchase, AFAIK, none of the other comics is available in an online form. These were bits and pieces from my crumbling memory. Marytown's online catalog doesn't seem to have Soldier of God, and the Marvel Comics were released in the 1980s, or perhaps the early 1990s. And I don't know if the Marvel Comics were available outside of the US. The Boys' Life items are in back numbers of Boys' Life, although I think the Bible Story comics are still featured and being repeated as they go through their cycle.

I don't have any knowledge of the PIX things.

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :

quote:
eleighteen stupidly wrote:
...Just because he doesn't share every one of your liberal views doesn't mean he's not out there doing God's work....

If you choose to pass on my hostly advisory, be my guest. You have already sullied your reputation so much in this community that using smilies probably won't redeem it very much.

However, inasmuch as I have not posted my opinion about Jack Chick, for you to impute "liberal" views to me goes a long way toward proving that you are an imbecile with an IQ in the single digits and the language skills of a myna bird.

It also indicates to me that you assume that I will disagree with Jack Chick although I have given you no indication of that fact. That means you expect a particular reaction from me (as well, presumably, as other people reading this thread.

This means that you are behaving like a Troll.

Guess what, eleighteen? I will be watching you very closely now for more Troll-like behavior. If I catch you pulling any more of that sort of bullshit behavior, I will chew you up and spit you out.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
Chick at 80 is still down with the kids, very realistic obnoxious skaters swearing at adults. ... today's brainswashed youth.

Yeah, that @!!!**! condescending attitude will really rake in those @!!!**! "obnoxious" "brainwashed" youth. Making them look goofy in contrast with the more realistically drawn preacher is a great @!!!**! way to make any @!!!**! teenager who reads this really think, "Wow, Mr. Chick really understands us and where we're coming from; I want to be like those two kids who are so ignorant they don't know what a virgin is and, once spoon-fed all the data in the right order, naturally pray The Sinner's Prayer™ And Are Instantly Saved, without any troubling questions or doubts."

Yeesh.

Oh, and he does get in his dig about the RCs. He unexpectedly (just in case we were confused on this point) jumps in to mention that the Three Wise Men "did not worship Mary." (Welcome to Non Sequitur City! And yeah, I do think the Sodom and Gomorrah story seems weirdly shoehorned in here...)

Double yeesh. Triple @!!!**! yeesh.

David
@!!!**! orthodox guy

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :

Put me down as a "really tetchy queen."

quote:
EL18: Gets a (righteous) dig in at homosexuals, that might help one of today's brainswashed youth.

quote:
Chick: It [homosexuality] smells of devils and death.

This is "righteous" how? This provides what sort of "help" to youth who are brainwashed to believe what falsity? By the way, if it matters, I am heterosexual.

quote:
EL18:Not-PC, but only objectionable to a really tetchy queen.

Only objectionable to a really tetchy queen? A real defender of Chick or even an abstract free-speech defender who disagreed with some or all of Chick would back-pedal and soft sell here, trying to win over the audience. Someone capable of concocting the phrase "really tetchy queen" has the intelligence to know that "smells of devils and death" is going to offend everyone except for the most primitive homophobe. Even an ignorant Klansman would not say that "lazy fucking nigger" is only going to offend "yer 60's hippie types." Troll alert! Ding, ding, ding!

EL18 is a troll, no doubt in my mind. The posts indicate a high level of education and intelligence being used to defend (in a mocking way) an embarrasingly ignorant "proponent" of the subject of the board: Christianity. As a good liberal however, I fully recognize that I might be wrong. EL18 could just be a disturbed, damaged, wasted intellect or a complete asshole. In Christian charity (and I consider myself more humanist than Christian) I will give him the benefit of the doubt and compliment him on being a fairly capable troll up to this point. [Not worthy!]

Except for the two quotes above. Busted, my young friend. Busted. [Disappointed]

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
Yes, but using smilies does somewhat telegraph dry "wit" (which I think would be a generous term applied to most of my posts). I thought it was fundies who were meant to take everything literally.

Let me get this straight: if you think it is humorous, but don't want to let people know it is humorous because you want to be "dry", then you reserve the right to not put in smilies? And, then you tut-tut somebody for being overly sensitive?

GEEZ..that's a convuluted set of logic used to explain something where you just screwed up.

You are a troll.

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :

Yes - but is he Shaitan? [Two face]

Posted by linzc (# 2914) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If he can have Battle Pope then he can have Nemesis the Warlock and the ABC Warriors.

Good comics to be sure Ken, but don't forget the most righteous 2000AD dude of all (well, excepting His Judgeness who isn't terribly religious, thank Grud).... Torquemada!

BTW I have a copy of Pilgrim's Progress comicised by Marvel I think (can't check as it's currently boxed up).

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

I wish I could agree with JimT that L18 shows a high degree of intelligence, but at least on the subject of Christianity he's working at about a junior-high level. But, hey, I'm a Pollyanna: I'd rather think he's stupid than that he's a troll, since it is easier to make a stupid person smart than it is to make a troll stop being an asshole.

On the whole comics question, I highly recommend The Picture Bible, which contains most of the narrative sections of the Bible (this is a thick volume) in comic book style. I got it for my older son a few years ago (I think he was six or seven at the time) and he's read it through several times and now knows his Bible stories better than his theology-professor father.

FCB

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Yes - but is he Shaitan?

Not as far as I know Wanderer. So drop it.

Viki

Posted by Amanuensis (# 1555) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sarkycow:

quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Yes - but is he Shaitan?
Not as far as I know Wanderer. So drop it.

Viki

But he might as well be.

The guy is stringing you along, folks, big time. Just don't play with him any more.

Or if I am wrong; el18, just let us know how your first recipient of that new Chick tract responds. Look forward to hear the moving story of confession and salvation.

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :

Dropped.

(It just gave me an excuse to use [Two face]

, which I rather enjoy.)

Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :

I remember PIX from Sunday School, often the only interesting thing on offer. There was, I believe, a serial about a Roman convert named Tullus.

Thanks for bringing it up--I haven't thought of those magazines for many years, and it is nice to remember. [Smile]

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :

Gee Amanuensis, you really think nobody else has figured that out yet? Or that they are either enjoying playing with him, or hoping that by rebuffing the rubbish he is spouting, that others reading won't get taken in?

Perhaps I should have posted a large "Caution: Trolls' Play Area" sign earlier? Then again, everyone else seemed to realise...

Viki, hellhost

[Perfected punctuation. Even hosts are occasionally imperfect.]

[ 03. November 2002, 14:14: Message edited by: sarkycow ]

Posted by Poet_of_Gold (# 2071) on :

Whatever you say about his views, Mr. Chick most definitely is an artist. Being one myself, I should know. His drawings show skill, passion, and observation of his subjects. And unlike many artists, he chooses to use his skills to try and lead others to God. His tracts are informative whether or not you share his views. The ones about FreeMasons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Moslems do give real facts and explanations of their views and ways of life.

No, not everyone who is Catholic is an unsaved non-believer in Christ. But there runs a real danger in anything built on tradition to run through the traditions for tradition's sake without feeling or meaning the real point of why it's done.

I agree for the most part with The Master Musician by John Michael Talbot. Every denomination from Catholic through Protestant and on down to charismatics has its strong points and weaknesses. Until we reach Heaven none of us will reach perfection. If God wanted instant perfection in His people on earth, they would be so. He instead chooses an interaction, a growing, and a journey for His people. It is for us, then, to appreciate what is good, pray about what is not, and to live and let live with those who disagree with us.

Posted by ej (# 2259) on :

quote:
posted by el18:
New tract out today by the way. Chick at 80 is still down with the kids, very realistic obnoxious skaters swearing at adults. The real challenge would be to do one for the tracksuited youth of Britain. Perhaps I could drop him a line...

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5018/5018_01.asp?FROM=bibleseries

Bit dissapointed, no hawhawhaws ,lightbulb headed God, lake of fire or digs at the HRCC. On the other hand that means it's a tract I'd consider passing out. Gets a (righteous) dig in at homosexuals, that might help one of today's brainswashed youth. Not-PC, but only objectionable to a really tetchy queen.

I'm praying hard that that was sarcasm... If this is what you honestly believe... [Disappointed]

If this is what you really believe el18, would you mind informing us just how much childrens/teen ministry your involved in? As someone involved in youth ministry, I know that the target audience for this track would either bin it asap (as they would with MOST tracts/written material), or use it as a source of unendless mirth and amusement... It so patronises and treats them with contempt and disrespect... I don't think I could have created a worse attempt to communicate with today's youth if I had tried...

It's an insult both to youth, to other Christians, and to God. I don't think Christ had this sort of mumbo-jumbo in mind as his justification while he was hanging on the cross...

Posted by Karl - Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Poet_of_Gold:

His tracts are informative whether or not you share his views. The ones about FreeMasons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Moslems do give real facts and explanations of their views and ways of life.

If the "facts" in these tracts are as inaccurate as the "facts" in Chick's tracts about Roman Catholicism, Evolution, and Fantasy RPGs, then they are as much use as a chocolate teapot, and just as likely to get the user's fingers burnt.

Let's just face it, the man's a pillock.

Posted by simon 2 (# 1524) on :

One of the early frames in the last tract looks like the front row of a Bathory or Visceral Bleeding gig. Describing Chick's detatchment from reality as out of touch comes no where near the mark.

Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :

Well, the great JTC debate rolls on.

Tomb "Your liberal views" ,was in the plural, I was addressing all those on the thread (and lurking) who object so much to Chick, not yourself. As you say, you have made none of your views known (then again neither have I, and that hasn't stopped some very personal attacks), though your defensive nature towards me suggests you cannot take anyone who would defend Chick seriously. As for my reputation, I post and lurk here to learn about God... ...if I want friends I'll go out in the real world.

JimT In real life, I tend to say things as I see them, and have a sense of humour that can tend towards the offensive. My wife frequently admonishes me for this, people can often read me the wrong way. It's worse on the internet where there are no clues to your true feelings from intonation of one's voice. Americans can also miss deadpan humour. I apologise if I was taken out of context. For "really tetchy queen" read "militant homosexual activist".

Without getting onto the difficult subject of human sexuality, the majority of "homosexuals" are hedonistic and promiscous, living a very unhappy and self destructive life. The myth we are taught of monogamous gay couples is sadly just that, a myth. Jack Chick highlights this - like everything else - in a very forthright manner, but that doesn't remove the truth in what is said.

FCB Junior High-School Christianity? Well we are supposed to be child-like in our faith. Joking apart, I have made no secret of my relatively recent "coming to Christ" [Killing me]

and the lack of depth to my theological knowledge on other threads. That is why by and large I lurk on these boards, I'm here to learn mostly.

One thing I do like about Chick is the very simple message of assurance once you accept Christ, seems much preferable to the Calvinist mind-gymnastics mentioned further up the thread.

Poet_of_Gold A good post. I shall endevour to look up John Michael Talbot.

ej As a child who loved to read Oink! comics (and in adolescence Viz), I would have lapped up Chick tracts, with their heavy satire and Hogarthian use of grotesques to lampoon modern society. That might not make me a "typical" youth, but there was clearly a market for those secular comics, so I was not alone.

Posted by Professor Yaffle (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Poet of Gold:

quote:
No, not everyone who is Catholic is an unsaved non-believer in Christ. But there runs a real danger in anything built on tradition to run through the traditions for tradition's sake without feeling or meaning the real point of why it's done.

But Chick isn't making your rather innocuous point about the dangers of tradition. What he is saying is that the Pope is the Antichrist, that Roman Catholics are the servants of Antichrist and presumably that those of us who don't subscribe to Chick Theology are fellow travellers of Antichrist.

And he really, really doesn't do research. On subjects which I do know a little about, he is frequently and hilariously inaccurate. I would not trust a Chick publication for information about anything more than the authors prejudices.

What Chick does effectively is Grand Guignol horror. His tracts are mildly diverting, superior entertainment to the backs of matchboxes, less entertaining than the average collection of Horror Short Stories. He is - grits teeth - my brother in Christ and may he find mercy at the hour of his death. But there is no need to be any more eirenic than that. Chick appears incapable of intellectual rigour or honesty, or indeed Christian charity and any analysis of his oeuvre should start from those facts.

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :

Perhaps eleighteen would like to give me the personal experience he has for making the comments he does about gay people. The only thing that may affect a gay person's abilty to form relationships is societal homophobia.

I was interested to read that I don't exist. As someone who has been in a monogamous gay relationship for 10 and a half years, I must remind myself daily of my mythical status.

I would have thought the tract concerned would be objectionable to all except the bigoted

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Quote from eleighteen

quote:
As for my reputation, I post and lurk here to learn about God... ...if I want friends I'll go out in the real world.

Would you please tell me what you have learned about God from lurking on the ship.

Moo

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Poet_of_Gold:
His tracts are informative whether or not you share his views. The ones about FreeMasons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Moslems do give real facts and explanations of their views and ways of life.

That puts them in the minority. Anyone ever read the one on Islam?

I have never read such an active hindrance to witness in my life.

Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Perhaps eleighteen would like to give me the personal experience he has for making the comments he does about gay people. The only thing that may affect a gay person's abilty to form relationships is societal homophobia.

I was interested to read that I don't exist. As someone who has been in a monogamous gay relationship for 10 and a half years, I must remind myself daily of my mythical status.

I would have thought the tract concerned would be objectionable to all except the bigoted

Mike I prefer not to use anecdotal evidence in arguments. There are hundreds of studies about gay sexual behaviour out there (from all sorts of organisations), they can be summarised as: Gays are mostly bisexual men, seeking hedonistic pleasure with as many partners as possible. Indeed, many gay "couples" are just a convenient live-in relationship, where both "partners" continue to seek casual sex with strangers. Anyone with any compassion can see this is a highly destructive lifestyle.

Your situation is different (and the rights/wrongs of it have probably been done to death on these boards), but the evidence says you are in a very small minority.

Moo I don't know whether your post is antagonistic or not. This thread is about Chick. I may post what I've learnt from SOF someday on a different thread, but it isn't very interesting and would smack of egotism on my part. FWIW, the variety of arguments on the Ship has been useful for me in trying to work out where I stand, for that I am very grateful.

Wood Chick tracts may not do it in the best way possible, but they tell the truth when they say God/Allah is not going to let you into heaven just because you prayed five times a day and fasted at Ramadan. And Islam is Judaism/Christianity bastardised to suit cultural norms, based on the "revelations" of a charlatan. Perhaps the tracts would be better off pointing out how central Christ is to the Koran, but this is not the route Jack has chosen to take. That doesn't make what he says untrue however.

Posted by Stoo. (# 254) on :

CAn I just say, this thread is great? I've not had such a laugh in ages.

Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :

oh dear....now, think about it. If you are going to do any sort of survey, it depends who you ask. Most of the surveys you refer to were done in the context of HIV prevention and surveyed gay men on the commercial scene, in order to plan safer sex campaigning and outreach.
Now, if you did a similar survey of heterosexual behaviour and chose as your sample people who used clubs and pubs aimed at young, sexually active people, I wonder what sort of results you would get ?
Even so, some of your statements are daft - 'gays are mostly bisexual' ( does that mean gay men may have occasionally slept with a woman - if we say that all straight men who have ever had any experience with men are gay, then we may not be such a small minority after all), 'hedonistic pleasure with as many partners as possible' - this all sounds very reminiscent of Paul Cameron, the Christian Institute et al

I am a social researcher, and surveying sexual behaviour or lifestyles is fraught with difficulties, particularly when the group concerned is, other than the aformentioned club-centred people, very difficult to reach. There are surveys which show that monogamy is not practiced in a large numberheterosexual relationships either, although I would agree that the 'open' relationship is something which has developed primarily within some gay cultures. From a Christian perspective it is something I would not advocate, but given that gay men were not legally allowed to have any relationships at all,until 1967, in the UK, and given that its still relatively difficult to meet people, maybe it isn't too surprising.

I feel sure that stable relationships, which I support, will be easier as society becomes more accepting, but I think there's plenty of that anecdotal evidence around to show this is already a trend. Short of every gay person developing a pink triangle on their forehead, though, gaining valid and relaiable statistical evidence is simply impossible

PS : Sorry this is off the topic, probably purgatorial, or expired equinal, but I felt such generalisations needed some comeback.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
Wood Chick tracts may not do it in the best way possible, but they tell the truth when they say God/Allah is not going to let you into heaven just because you prayed five times a day and fasted at Ramadan. And Islam is Judaism/Christianity bastardised to suit cultural norms, based on the "revelations" of a charlatan.

But they lie with the whole "Allah is a moon God" thing.

Islam is not bastardised Christianity. It's a different quantity entirely. If you're going to witness to a Muslim, you're doomed unless you have your facts straight. I believe in a God who wants us to use the truth. I was under the impression that says lying is wrong. Hence, I'll not be using any of Chick's material. Because it lies. Which is hardly Christian under any stretch of the imagination.

Also: your "knowledge" of what homosexuals are like is sorelyt lacking in depth, inasmuch as you appear to draw a dated stereotype wholly from the gay club scene - and let's face it, it's not as if the hetero club scene is any more chaste. Assuming that all gay people are part of the same scene, and share the same way of life is as frankly stupid as assuming that all hetero people are mad promiscuous lager lourts by checking out some nightclubs in Ibiza.

Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :

On homosexual behaviour, I suggest reading Straight and Narrow by T Schmidt. The conclusions are a little conservative for some, but the research, facts and figures used are sound and there for all to see.

The point about addressing all sexual behaviour outside of marriage, not just homosexuality, is fairly central to this book. The same is true of Chick, his satirical attacks on modern (hetero)sexual mores in Baby Talk or That Crazy Guy are even more biting than his homosexual ones.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Assuming that all gay people are part of the same scene, and share the same way of life is as frankly stupid ...

You've got that right. [Frown]

I'm checking my watch to see just how long it takes the thread to get moved down to Dead Horses along with the hundred or so (well -- three, I think) Threads on Homosexuality.

(Admittedly, Eleighteen may not know this, but when a subject's been gone over as many times as that has, it gets put in Dead Horses where the debating can continue, just so you know...)

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Has anyone studied the sex lives of trolls recently?

They seem to be breeding round here.

Posted by LatinMan (# 1892) on :

quote:
Chick tracts may not do it in the best way possible, but they tell the truth when they say God/Allah is not going to let you into heaven just because you prayed five times a day and fasted at Ramadan. And Islam is Judaism/Christianity bastardised to suit cultural norms, based on the "revelations" of a charlatan. Perhaps the tracts would be better off pointing out how central Christ is to the Koran, but this is not the route Jack has chosen to take. That doesn't make what he says untrue however.

However, IIRC, Chick's tract treating the origin of Islam makes the claim that it was a Roman Catholic plot...

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :

[hostly warning]

As long as people confine their discussion to the substance of Jack Chick's literature, this thread is welcome to continue in Hell.

The proviso, however, is that posters also ignore the trolls' postings about homosexuality. If, alas, that topic takes over this thread to any substantitive degree, I will close it.

el18 DO NOT post any more of your opinions on homosexuality on this thread. Nobody gives a damn about what you think about it. If you are unable to contain yourself, use one of many threads in Dead Horses to share your opinion. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

This goes for you, too, Merseymike.

[/hostly warning]

tomb
hellhost

Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
<snip> the majority of "homosexuals" are hedonistic and promiscous, living a very unhappy and self destructive life. The myth we are taught of monogamous gay couples is sadly just that, a myth. Jack Chick highlights this - like everything else - in a very forthright manner, but that doesn't remove the truth in what is said.
<snip> Gays are mostly bisexual men, seeking hedonistic pleasure with as many partners as possible. Indeed, many gay "couples" are just a convenient live-in relationship, where both "partners" continue to seek casual sex with strangers. Anyone with any compassion can see this is a highly destructive lifestyle. <snip>

Grabs hostly toasting fork

A few pointers:

Hell is not the place to debate homosexuality. This includes, but is not limited to: rights/wrongs of it; biblical arguements for/against; its abnormality or otherwise; comparisons with paedophilia; relative staying power of such relationships; relative destructiveness of it and its relationships. If you wish to discuss any of these topics, or anything which comes under the general theme of homosexuality, then follow this link to a thread in Dead Horses. Read the five pages, and post your opinions there (assuming they haven't been stated already by someone else).
Although we are in Hell, there are still rules. In particular, our guidelines apply. The relevant portions (in the event that you are a braindead moron and therefore have not yet read and learnt these guidelines):

quote:
1. Racism, sexism, etc. – while you have a right to hold whatever opinion you like, if you post racist, sexist, or whateverist drivel here, may God have mercy on your soul.

8. The rules – apart from this, the normal Ship of Fools 10 Commandments continue to apply. But if you do break the rules, don't expect everyone else to adhere to them in responding to you. An eye for an eye...
Sweeping statements claiming 'All/the majority of homosexuals are...' are wandering into breaches of commandments. Guidelines cannot (of course) be breached, as they are provided to give a guide to good behaviour, rather than lay down laws which must be obeyed. However, as the guidelines point out, non-adherence on one person's part means a reciprocal non-adherence on the part of others dealing with the first person.

Viki, hellhost

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

Moving on (faster than a stream of tachyon particles), here's another one:

Another anti-evolution tract

I think one thing in Chick tracts which gets to me is the "wow! I've never heard anything like this before, and I'm instantly convinced!" part. Characters pretty much jump right in and uncritically accept what The Evangelist Character tells them.

"And, Bob -- did you know that the Royal Family are actually lizards?" "Gasp! I never knew that before!"

David
"That blows me away, my brain is reeling."

Posted by linzc (# 2914) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
"And, Bob -- did you know that the Royal Family are actually lizards?" "Gasp! I never knew that before!"

I thought the Royal Family were the lost heirs of King David...?

Posted by Professor Yaffle (# 525) on :

Chast, you are spot on about the dialogue. No-one ever offers a reasoned objection. There appears to be no middle ground between "My word, I never knew that" and "Damn you, and Damn all your kind", usually followed by a visit to Old Nobodaddy and a fiery end.

The most recent tract has an example of Chick's clunking dialogue. When you-know-what is mentioned. Hip Skater Dude #1 replies "Are you criticising the homosexual lifestyle?" The homosexual lifestyle? Do Hip Skater Dudes talk like this? Does anyone? And do Hip Skater Dudes really have this kind of liberal attitude to homophobia? And if they do won't it take more than the assurance that "it smells of devils and death" to shift it? And do American children just uncritically believe what their teachers tell them until they are put right by a kindly fundamentalist?

This falls a little short of my definition of gritty social realism, it must be said.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by linzc:
I thought the Royal Family were the lost heirs of King David...?

And lizards.

quote:
Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
This falls a little short of my definition of gritty social realism, it must be said.

(trying to giggle quietly whilst at work) [Killing me]

Posted by simon 2 (# 1524) on :

My experience of skaters is they don't give a monkeys what you do with who, just don't try and do it to them. Big Brother skateboarding magazine (owned by pornographer Larry Flint) recently ran an article on an gay am skater, it was in their usual style of sexual inuendo and smut, but still very funny. The cover of the mag was of the interviewe nosegrinding down a fair sized handrail in a pair of leather chaps and not a lot else, gotta have balls to do that, and a good sense of humour.

BTW the threat of hellfire hasn't saved one of my skater friends, but love and kindness has brought them a whole lot closer to God and accepting him.

ps. Jackass is the bastard child of Dave Carnie one of the Big Brother staff and comic genius. The big brother videos crap, shit and boob all outshine Jackass by a million miles.

The mag ran the rules to Russian Poo-let recently, the funniest and most disgusting game ever devised I think.

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :

I read the new anti-creation tract and now I’m confused. In an earlier Creationist tract Chick said that geologists had determined that the earth was 1.4 million years old, based on erosion rates. Now, he says 6,000 years. He needs to check the facts of the Rock Cycle. What better place to look than in his head?

The outer layer of his cranium is densely layered with Impedimentary Rocks. These rocks have the property of being impervious to Truth. Therefore, the innermost parts of his head contain Ignorant Rocks. These are molten rocks that at times flow from his mouth, making highly interesting Ignorant Formations. The only rocks he does not have in his head are of course Metamorphic Rocks because change and transformation are impossible for him.

Posted by Eanswyth (# 3363) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
The outer layer of his cranium is densely layered with Impedimentary Rocks. These rocks have the property of being impervious to Truth. Therefore, the innermost parts of his head contain Ignorant Rocks. These are molten rocks that at times flow from his mouth, making highly interesting Ignorant Formations. The only rocks he does not have in his head are of course Metamorphic Rocks because change and transformation are impossible for him.

Bravo, JimT, Bravo! [Not worthy!]

Pure genius. [Not worthy!]

Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :

http://www.onion.com/index.shtml

Tract Writer Cites God, Jack Chick As Influences

STILLWATER, OK—Robert Welton, founder and sole employee of Inspired Word Christian Tracts, cites God and Jack Chick as the two biggest influences on his work. "God is the one I owe the most to. Everything I write draws on something of His," Welton, 44, told reporters Tuesday. "But Jack Chick, he showed the tract-writing world how to do it. Everything from This Was Your Life to Sin Busters to the ongoing Bible Tract series are pretty much the gold standard." Welton added that Mohammed and Buddha are in their graves, but Christ's grave is empty.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

Hmmm.

Either you're too thick to recognise satire (which is always a possibility) or you've just admitted that you're a troll.

Posted by Dyfrig (# 15) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
[slight breach of copyright]

It must be true - it's in the Onion.

Posted by Robert Miller (# 1459) on :

I'm sure eleighteen knows that The Onion is satire Wood. Mind you alot of people thought that The Onions Harry Potter story was quite genuine and have freely quoted it - anyway, there are worse things he could be trolling on aren't there?

Posted by simon 2 (# 1524) on :

I second Wood's proposal. Perhaps we could have a poll on the subject.

Posted by eleighteen (# 2736) on :

Ok... I'm trolling.. ..to an extent. There was a serious point in all of this somewhere, although it is questionable whether I have the skill to get it out.

There are two main charges that JTC is accused of. Firstly, his tracts are more likely to turn people away from Christianity. Secondly, his anti-Roman tracts may inspire hate.

To deal with the first point. As a recent(ish) convert(ish) there were all sorts of things thrown at me by a hawhawhaw-ing devil that personally put me off. A****, that tedious children's author, scary Durham evangelicals.... ..they scare a lot of others off too. I hope you can see that some of what some of you do does that. At best, it is hypocritical to accuse JTC of doing the same. And if anyone reads Chick and thinks "all Christians are exactly like that", then they already have strong prejiduces... ..they are people who only want them reaffirmed anyway and Chick will certainly do that!

Chicklets, well, they made me laugh. As someone with universalist leanings, Old lightbulb-head quoting Matt25.41 (taken way out of context of the rest of that chapter IMO) just pointed out the stupidity of the damnation that many Christians believe in. Or rather, how I thought they believed in it. Anyway, checking up some of Chick's quotes with the Bible (1611 KJV natch') encouraged me to do the same with other "mainstream" books. Guess what? I could interpret passages quoted there entirely differently too. It wasn't exactly how they said it was. So I got over my "damnation" problem, and could concentrate on God, with the help of.... Chick Tracts. My, he does work in strange ways. (perhaps I should write to Chick and tell him this story)

The second is well... ..more difficult. I think ( think ) that most Protestants have problems with aspects of the HRCC by definition. Not that would make RCs unsaved. Like I said on another thread, it's like the masons. There are weird bits that should be open to criticism, but the conspiracy theories... ...well they just make the accuser look silly.

From accounts of people who have been lucky enough to meet him, Chick seems a nice guy. I'd say he's been misguided, taken in by Rivera who in interviews was always very covincing. He doesn't come from a tradition of sectarian mistrust (and yes, I know his tracts are less than helpful when distributed in Ireland).. ..I think he sees it as wanting to see people saved. The attacks are always against the RCC, not catholics themselves. His benign (if loopy) nature is why you lot all return to his literature again and again... ....if it was real hate you'd leave well alone.

So to sum up the defence. Christians criticising other Christians 'cos their theology puts people off is hypocritical. The anti-Catholic stuff causes no real harm. And they're are a blinking good read and have helped at least one member of the ship.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

Quote from eleighteen

quote:
Ok... I'm trolling.. ..to an extent. There was a serious point in all of this somewhere, although it is questionable whether I have the skill to get it out.

Why don't you just say what you think directly instead of hinting at a serious point which you're not sure you can get out.

Are you not capable of stating what you think?

M<oo

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :

I was deeply touched reading about Jack Chick's conversion in that it models EL18's so very closely and can even be found in his sig. I guess that explains the understandable affinity EL18 has for Chick. No wonder there is such a bond there.

quote:
While visiting Lynn’s parents in Canada on their honeymoon, Jack’s mother-in-law insisted that he sit and listen to Charles E. Fuller’s Old Fashioned Revival Hour radio program. Jack recalls, "God was already working on my heart, but when Fuller said the words, "Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow," I fell on my knees and my life was changed forever."

quote:
My future mother-in-law gave me a copy of "Mere Christianity" when I started courting (fabulous old-fashioned word) my wife.

The disbelieving husband is sanctified through the wife (I Cor 7.14)........(thinks)..... woo-hooo!

Posted by linzc (# 2914) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
So to sum up the defence. Christians criticising other Christians 'cos their theology puts people off is hypocritical.

The issue is not theology but style of evangelism. No matter what nutty stuff I believe, if I keep it to myself, I'm not harming the reputation of the church. But f'rinstance, if I decide that it would be cool to run around naked handing leaflets out entitled 'One day you too will stand naked before the Judgement Seat of the Almighty', I think I would be harming the cause of the gospel (particularly given my bod!) and a brother or sister in Christ would be fully entitled to give me a good dressing down.

quote:
The anti-Catholic stuff causes no real harm. And they're are a blinking good read and have helped at least one member of the ship.

Who says the anti-Catholic stuff causes no harm? If as I and others here maintain, it is a fabric of lies and unfounded inuendo, it again makes Christians and Christianity look bad. Remember that Jesus spoke about the 'unforgiveable sin' only once and that was in the context of the Pharisees attributing the work of God to Satan. Isn't that precisely what Chick does in his anti-Catholic tracts?

Posted by simon 2 (# 1524) on :

Sometimes I wonder if Chick uses the idea of the pious fraud to justify printing stuff that isn't true, just so that souls can be saved.

Posted by Campbellite (# 1202) on :

Nah, Linzc, they're just keeping the seat warm until the Son of David returns.

Posted by Professor Yaffle (# 525) on :

Eleighteen,

God is a god of truth and is worshipped in spirit and in truth. He commands us not to bear false witness against our neighbour.

It is therefore reasonable to object to the oeuvre of a man whose output appears largely to consist of slander.

That Chick tracts may have been instances of grace for some people is not a defence. Christ's Passion wouldn't have happened without Judas Iscariot.

Which part of that was difficult?

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
Old lightbulb-head quoting Matt25.41 (taken way out of context of the rest of that chapter IMO) just pointed out the stupidity of the damnation that many Christians believe in. Or rather, how I thought they believed in it. Anyway, checking up some of Chick's quotes with the Bible (1611 KJV natch') encouraged me to do the same with other "mainstream" books. Guess what? I could interpret passages quoted there entirely differently too. It wasn't exactly how they said it was. So I got over my "damnation" problem, and could concentrate on God, with the help of.... Chick Tracts.

I could say exactly the same thing about liberal politics and Rush Limbaugh; watching various friends get into his radio programme (back in my more conservative days) I checked him out and by his sheer unfairness toward his opponents, inspired me to check out what they actually said, and I found that it made more sense to me than the politically conservative side. For years, in fact, I've commented to people how Rush Limbaugh helped me become more liberal, O irony, etc.

It does not therefore follow that either Chick or Limbaugh, by being so horrid that *some* people decide to look closer at the facts and therefore reach better conclusions, is doing something good and blessed by God. Not to mention the scary number of people who are uncritically led astray by either of them.

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :

I can't fully undrerstand CM's example, not being American, but I think I get the drift. In the same way I can say that Margaret Thatcher made me a socialist. That doesn't mean to say that I have any liking for the mad bitch.

Posted by LatinMan (# 1892) on :

quote:
The anti-Catholic stuff causes no real harm.

How do you know?

I have met some people, and not unintelligent or evil people either, who believe some awfully stupid stuff.

If we changed the subject from Chick tracts to The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and Catholics to Jews, would you still say "the anti-Jewish stuff causes no real harm"?

Posted by clare (# 17) on :

quote:
Originally posted by eleighteen:
Ok... I'm trolling.. ..to an extent. There was a serious point in all of this somewhere, although it is questionable whether I have the skill to get it out.

eleighteen,

You've had a scattering of hostly advice leading to hostly warnings on this thread. You've now bagged a member administrator on your case. Take them seriously.

You've admited you were trolling. The rest of the post makes some effort to mitigate that (though will doubtless prompt further outrage due to content, but that's your look-out). This is Hell, but it's a high quality Hell. If you continue to troll, then you will be on suspension. If you desist, you may stay. Enjoy the heat.

clare.

------------------
Member Administrator

Posted by simon 2 (# 1524) on :

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was what I was thinking of when I posted last time, but figured it might bring around an application of Godwin's law. Some people are still using them to stir up hate, claiming that although factually inaccurate the spirit behind them is still truthful, for an example see:

http://abbc.com/islam/english/toread/pr-zion.htm

(sorry my browser is rubbish so the prev. post and url buttons dont work)

Posted by LatinMan (# 1892) on :

quote:
Simon 2 informs us:
Some people are still using them (the Protocols) to stir up hate, claiming that although factually inaccurate the spirit behind them is still truthful...

One would be merely horrified if the people publishing excrement like the Protocols really believed they were factual. But when they admit they are publishing lies because the "spirit behind them is still truthful" that has to be pure malice.

Posted by duchess [green] (# 2764) on :

[Tangent here...]

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
<snip!> I could say exactly the same thing about liberal politics and Rush Limbaugh; watching various friends get into his radio programme (back in my more conservative days) I checked him out and by his sheer unfairness toward his opponents, inspired me to check out what they actually said, and I found that it made more sense to me than the politically conservative side. For years, in fact, I've commented to people how Rush Limbaugh helped me become more liberal, O irony, etc.

It does not therefore follow that either Chick or Limbaugh, by being so horrid that *some* people decide to look closer at the facts and therefore reach better conclusions, is doing something good and blessed by God. Not to mention the scary number of people who are uncritically led astray by either of them.

As one of the few shipmates who enjoy Rush Limbaugh's show (occasionally when I spend the night over my mom's and wake up to her blasting it), I feel this is a rather unfair comparison. I don't agree with 100% of what RL says [or of his characters mocking some of the Left] but the man is only a political entertainer and not masquerading as a religious-know-it-all.

I feel the same way you do but in an opposite way...I used to consider myself a Liberal and found myself swayed a rather similar way [not naming names here to avoid starting another tangent].

I think the comparison's a bit tad too harsh my friend.[/Tangent Over]

I think Jack Chick has helped me in a way...I found some of his accusations so incredulous that I checked them out for myself...brought them into the light, so to speak. I went to www.catholic.org and other places...talked to people and came to the scary conclusion I had more in common with my theology (scary Reformed Calivinist here] with Catholics then mainstream Protestants. (not saying I agree with Catholics on everything but I don't agree they worship Mary...that they are all not saved..etc..etc..).

In only that particular vein , Jack Chick has done some good. In the other, he has disgraced many by having a few tidy facts hiding in a boiling pot of simmering poison. [brick wall]

[A little less Fosters might help.]

[ 08. November 2002, 23:15: Message edited by: sarkycow ]

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

Well -- no offence to you meant re Limbaugh -- my position remains the same -- the people I've known who were fans of his treated him first as an alternative news source to the "liberal media" -- then they treated him as their main news source -- then they treated him as their primary source. If he said it, they took it as fact. He seemed to me to pretty much bring out the worst in them. Maybe he's changed in the last few years; but whether he sets himself up as a non-news source, many people here (not only my acquaintances) have certainly treated him as a primary source for information.

Perhaps someone could replace Limbaugh with some other source, but I think the principle still holds -- someone you believe is being terribly unfair, by their sheer (perceived) unfairness helping you see the good points you believe they are overlooking, is not necessarily doing a great thing.

Dropping Limbaugh altogether here...

If you eat something which makes you ill, and you therefore seek out better food, it doesn't mean the original toxic food was good food because it inspired you to do better. In the same way, just because someone read Chick, and because he was so twisted they sought and found a better view of Christianity, it doesn't mean Chick is doing good things.

Posted by duchess [green] (# 2764) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
If you eat something which makes you ill, and you therefore seek out better food, it doesn't mean the original toxic food was good food because it inspired you to do better. In the same way, just because someone read Chick, and because he was so twisted they sought and found a better view of Christianity, it doesn't mean Chick is doing good things.

Agreed.

Posted by simon 2 (# 1524) on :

On the site I linked to earlier there is a pre-reading page, which pretty much confirms the malice (choosing the second of Latinmans options) behind the continued publication of the Protocols.

A short extract:

"They show too deep an understanding both of Gentile weaknesses familiar to us all and of the sort of mind set which
might ruthlessly exploit them for sectarian gain. Fictional or not, they were written by
somebody who knew very well the kind of men whose utterances they supposedly report. They
express a wealth of hard-headed insight in a tone of arrogant superiority which is not
unfamiliar to us either. We cannot quarrel with the comment of Henry Ford's Dearborn
Independent - which publicized the Protocols in America around 1921 -that the work was "too
terribly real for fiction, too well-sustained for speculation, too deep in its knowledge of the
secret springs of life for forgery". "

Extract taken from: http://abbc.com/islam/english/toread/prvisit.htm

I believe it shows the hatered of one particular race and the bigotry of the author. Reading such bile, has made me want to investigate anti-fascist movements and has made me more liberal and open to critique of my faith. That does not make the Protocols or their publishers worthy of any praise.

Posted by LatinMan (# 1892) on :

quote:
FCB sez:
On the whole comics question, I highly recommend The Picture Bible, which contains most of the narrative sections of the Bible (this is a thick volume) in comic book style. I got it for my older son a few years ago (I think he was six or seven at the time) and he's read it through several times and now knows his Bible stories better than his theology-professor father.

I looked up The Picture Bible at Amazon.com. The excerpts look like the Bible comics I remember from Boys' Life.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0