Have YOU ever read CHICK Publications?

[standing_alone]

I'm still working on the best response to "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior?"

Well, I like this line I seen on a button from Betty Bowers... on second thought, I don't think it's appropriate.

 

[Smoke]

Well, I like this line I seen on a button from Betty Bowers... on second thought, I don't think it's appropriate.

I think I'll do my Christmas shopping at Betty Bowers.

 

[James the Persian]

The Nazi's did not think they were bad or wrong, they followed their charismatic leader, whom they thought would bring them great things, they followed his religious teachings, Arianism, etc., it was all grand and wonderful, until the reality hit. This is the way of false religions, they seem right, but they are not. If they say you get to Heaven, not through Christ's atoning death, but through our church or organization alos, and our rules and our writings, and good works, and this and that, then they are not right, and they are not leading people to Heaven. They are leading people astray, to an eternity in Hell, apart from the Father, and that is far worse than what the Nazi's did.

Just a small point, but Arianism has absolutely nothing to do with Hitler or the Nazis. It is named after the priest Arius who taught it, not the Aryan race that Hitler used as a justification for genocide and has nothing to do with the latter at all. It was a heresy combatted at the Council of Nicea in 325, which taught that Christ was a creature rather than Creator. I don't believe that anyone was actually following Hitler's 'religious teachings' and the Nazis certainly weren't Arians (or even Aryans, despite their claims). It amazes me that you can apparently defend Chick as exposing the truth when you seem so confused about the truth yourself.

Chick's tracts are full of hatred and lies as many others here have said, and if you think that is a sign of a genuine Christian faith then I feel sorry for you. The one thing that I can be thankful for is that, judging from that website, he is so preoccupied with slandering Roman Catholicism that he seems to not even realise that we exist. Sometimes westerners' general level of ignorance about the history of the Church in the east is a blessing indeed.

James

 

[MaddLlama]

I'm still working on the best response to "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior?"

Hehe, same here. Though "Go away" seems to work alright until I think of something clever.

One of my friends does this great thing - he runs the Coney Island side show, and hammers a nail into his nose when someone asks.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I've read Chick publications before, too. I don't find them amusing at all.........in fact, I feel sad for Jack Chick and his intensely egoistic grasping.



The man clearly suffers from delusion.




Peace,
Mystic

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I am not comparing Nazi's or HItler to Jack, I am comparing them to the false prophets, cults, and religions which Jack exposes.

If you think that Jack Chick exposes anything, you are perversely mistaken. His work is baselss propaganda with no contact to reality for anything that he addresses.

 

[Bishka]

If you think that Jack Chick exposes anything, you are perversely mistaken. His work is baselss propaganda with no contact to reality for anything that he addresses.

:clap:clap:clap:clap

 

[Defij]

You know, I really hate to pull this in another direction, but I see this argument here all the time and it really bothers me.
This argument for so-called "logical consistency" is illogical in itself. If one were to be consistent in this way and rail against EVERYTHING that could be considered offensive, even in just a religious context, you would have nothing else in your life, because it would take up all of your time. As they say, you have to pick and choose your battles, so we concentrate on the things that are personally offensive to us.

And besides, this happens to be a topic about Chick. So, it's unlikely that you'll see anyone complaining about other religious groups that slander others in this thread. That's the kind of logical consistency we should be looking for.

No see, that's not my point. My point isn't to "rally" against things offensive. Again, if you would have read my "EDIT" you would see that I'm not against anyone publishing "offensive" material. It's their right to do as such. I didn't start this thread, I do not care honestly what Chuck Publications prints. Is it wrong? Yes. Is it full of half-truths and other inaccuracies? Of course. However, should he be able to publish it? Yes. And if the whole point of this thread was to just say "Hey look how stupid this guy is!" Then fine, I agree, but it should have ended at that. However it did not. People are all up in arms about his publications like they are the worst filth ever published in life. You might not be in this category of people, and if you are not, then this does not apply to you. My comment about being “logically consistent” pretty much only applies to those people who are vehemently against Chuck Publications and not other forms of “offensive” material.

 

[MaddLlama]

No see, that's not my point. My point isn't to "rally" against things offensive. Again, if you would have read my "EDIT" you would see that I'm not against anyone publishing "offensive" material. It's their right to do as such. I didn't start this thread, I do not care honestly what Chuck Publications prints. Is it wrong? Yes. Is it full of half-truths and other inaccuracies? Of course. However, should he be able to publish it? Yes. And if the whole point of this thread was to just say "Hey look how stupid this guy is!" Then fine, I agree, but it should have ended at that. However it did not. People are all up in arms about his publications like they are the worst filth ever published in life. You might not be in this category of people, and if you are not, then this does not apply to you. My comment about being “logically consistent” pretty much only applies to those people who are vehemently against Chuck Publications and not other forms of “offensive” material.

First of all, if you read my post you'll see that I did not say "rally" I said "rail". Two different things. And second, I already addressed why your argument for logical consistency in being anti-offensive material is in fact illogical in itself in my post, which you must have missed.
And, I don't believe I ever said he shouldn't be allowed to publish his tripe. Free-press and all.

 

[Defij]

First of all, if you read my post you'll see that I did not say "rally" I said "rail". Two different things. And second, I already addressed why your argument for logical consistency in being anti-offensive material is in fact illogical in itself in my post, which you must have missed.
And, I don't believe I ever said he shouldn't be allowed to publish his tripe. Free-press and all.

Well that was just a typo. Rail is what I meant to say. And I didn't miss it at all. I think my argument still stands. Again, I was not the individual who started this Chuck Publication bashing.

 

[MaddLlama]

Well that was just a typo. Rail is what I meant to say. And I didn't miss it at all. I think my argument still stands. Again, I was not the individual who started this Chuck Publication bashing.

So, it's all or nothing, right?
You can't expect someone to fight against every piece of material that could possibly be deemed offensive to someone. Not even everything which is grossly and obviously offensive. People have other concerns outside of that which offends us, and to suggest that if you're against one thing that's offensive, then everything that is offensive should get equal treatment is in essence telling that person that that is the only thing they should be doing with thier lives. With so much offensive material out there, even just on the internet, if I were to apply my frustration to every single one of them, I would be hard pressed to find the time to care for my family, let alone eat or sleep. Logical this is not, says vulcan Yoda.
And, the alternative you're providing is to sit back and do nothing against anything that is offensive at all, even if directed at all. Please see post number 58 for my problem with that alternative.

And, it makes no difference whether or not you're the one that started it. It's also a midly immature way to try and end an argument.

 

[Defij]

Okay, this is flaming into something I do not want to be a part of, however I will say this. I never said you have to either sit back and do nothing, or protest against EVERYTHING "offensive", I was simply saying that to be "logically consistent" a person must deem lies against other religions "offensive" if they are going to deem the Chuck Publications "offensive". Do they have to protest "everything"? No. I never said that. Do they have to "actively" go out of their way to battle all forms of "offensive" material? No, I never said that, you seemed to have implied that in my argument. My WHOLE point was more to do with finding something "offensive" or not, not actually doing anything about it. I understand "picking our battles". Obviously it is not "logical" to spend 100% of our lives battling "offensive" material. But my problem is with people who find lies FROM certain Christian sect’s offensive but do NOT find lies ABOUT Christian sect’s offensive. That is what I was talking about as far as being "logically consistent." I was not being “immature” and looking for a way out of an argument at all.

 

[MaddLlama]

Okay, this is flaming into something I do not want to be a part of, however I will say this. I never said you have to either sit back and do nothing, or protest against EVERYTHING "offensive", I was simply saying that to be "logically consistent" a person must deem lies against other religions "offensive" if they are going to deem the Chuck Publications "offensive".

And I still maintain that even bringing it up is a completely moot point, because it works under the assumption that anyone who is complaining about Chick does not complain about any other similar person. This is a thread about one particular person, so no others would be complained about in this thread. So, your entire point is irrelevant.

 

[Defij]

And I still maintain that even bringing it up is a completely moot point, because it works under the assumption that anyone who is complaining about Chick does not complain about any other similar person. This is a thread about one particular person, so no others would be complained about in this thread. So, your entire point is irrelevant.

Well fine, I concede that point. If your whole argument is to say "This is a thread to complain about Chick Publications only" then fine. However your "additional" argument is what I made my response to.

But I'm sure we both have better things to do then continue this, so good day.

 

[Quiddity]

The word "disgusting" pops to mind.

 

[joeboonda]

Just a small point, but Arianism has absolutely nothing to do with Hitler or the Nazis. It is named after the priest Arius who taught it, not the Aryan race that Hitler used as a justification for genocide and has nothing to do with the latter at all. It was a heresy combatted at the Council of Nicea in 325, which taught that Christ was a creature rather than Creator. I don't believe that anyone was actually following Hitler's 'religious teachings' and the Nazis certainly weren't Arians (or even Aryans, despite their claims). It amazes me that you can apparently defend Chick as exposing the truth when you seem so confused about the truth yourself.

Chick's tracts are full of hatred and lies as many others here have said, and if you think that is a sign of a genuine Christian faith then I feel sorry for you. The one thing that I can be thankful for is that, judging from that website, he is so preoccupied with slandering Roman Catholicism that he seems to not even realise that we exist. Sometimes westerners' general level of ignorance about the history of the Church in the east is a blessing indeed.

James

Ah, yes, I know the difference, Arianism was condemned as a heresy back at the Council of Nicea, that is correct. I was speaking of the whole blonde-haired, blue-eyed, white supremist thing, and also, his speeches wherein he used biblical ideas to brainwash the people into following his ideas. He used a few things, I wish I had the documentary about it, and twisted enough so the people bought into them. They really did have a false religion they followed, but whatever. One thing, never feel sorry for me, okay? I am just fine. Now, as far as Roman Catholicism is concerned, as I stated, my Mother was taught as a little girl by the nuns that Jesus died on the cross to pay for her sins. I think within all 'denominations' there are people who, in spite of some wrong teachings of their church, still find that one truth, and trust in Christ to save them. However, when they add something more to what Christ did on the cross and simply trusting in, or believing in Him to save you, but they add Christ plus their church, or Christ plus their confession, or baptism, or sacraments, or dead works, or Christ plus anything else, then they are wrong. I don't doubt for a minute that many Roman Catholics are saved, but, I also believe the church is not right about many things too. And the cults, well if they are a cult, they deny the trinity, the deity of Christ, salvation by faith alone in Christ alone, or they deny Christ as the way all together, then they are wrong. That does not mean I hate them or don't think they have the right to practice what they believe is true, I am just saying that according to sound Bible teaching, they are in error, and we are to expose false teachers and false doctrine and if people don't like it, then, oh, well.

 

[joeboonda]

Chick is an idiot and if his tracts have led a single person to Christ I would be emmensly suprised...

They have lead countless people to Christ all over the world.

 

[joeboonda]

I don't believe I have any words that can appropriately convey my disgust. You think that someone following a nonChristian religion is worse than killing millions of people?

I never said that, but the Crusades and the Inquisition come to mind...

 

[MaddLlama]

They have lead countless people to Christ all over the world.

And, with a person who willfully bears false witness against other religions as thier reason for converting, these people will make excellent editions to the Christian population. Might as well get them thier plane ticket to Topeka now.

 

[MaddLlama]

The Crusades and the Inquisition come to mind...

Just so I know, do you think these are good things? Upstanding moments in our history that should be repeated?