Jack Chick

[MC1171611]

Anyhow, the FACT is that these people don't want to believe anything that isn't mainstream for fear of looking foolish. I don't care. I'd rather look foolish to the world than to God. The ways of God are foolishness with the world, and the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man, so whatever.

The fact (again) remains that Chisk's material is FOOTNOTED, and his detractors here have REFUSED to provide any EVIDENCE that Chick is wrong. They simply say "Chick says dumb stuff so he's stupid." Now if that isn't about the lamest thing I've heard of.

Oh, and ttrig, you failed to provide ANY Biblical support for homosexuality. If you want to be "pro 'gay' rights," then you should have at least a REASON for it. I know EXACTLY why I'm AGAINST "gays." It's becaues GOD is against homosexuals. And again, don't you even think of editing this or warning me because 1) I said nothing against homosexuals, and 2) I am simply stating a Scriptual FACT.

Have a nice day.

 

[Montanaman]

I agree. This thread has definitely gone off on a tangent.

Meh. I said my piece and waited, but nobody responded for quite a while. That, and the coffee hadn't quite kicked in...

 

[Montanaman]

The fact (again) remains that Chisk's material is FOOTNOTED, and his detractors here have REFUSED to provide any EVIDENCE that Chick is wrong. They simply say "Chick says dumb stuff so he's stupid." Now if that isn't about the lamest thing I've heard of.

Go look at his tract on "Little Sally" or whatever it's called, about Catholicism. Where he says "The Catholic priest is so powerful he can pull Christ from Heaven," that's a gross distortion of our beliefs about the Real Presence and transubstantiation.

 

[Montanaman]

Go look at his tract on "Little Sally" or whatever it's called, about Catholicism. Where he says "The Catholic priest is so powerful he can pull Christ from Heaven," that's a gross distortion of our beliefs about the Real Presence and transubstantiation.

Then there's the tract called "Why is Mary Crying?" As with most of his tracts, he gets just short of outright lying and uses passive-aggressive methods to imply things we don't believe. For example, it shows a picture of a pope bowing before a statue. I'm sure the anti-Catholics here will interpret that however they want, but the simple fact is that we do not attribute divinity to either Mary, OR statues. We DO NOT worship her or them.

He has Mary telling us poor, deluded Catholics that there is only one mediator. Note to Chick and whoever believes him: We've believed that for 2000 years. Is Chick lying? Pretty close.

Ah. Here's an actual lie--and horrid historical conclusion-jumping: In another panel he writes "Little by little, the worship of the pagan goddess was transferred to Mary."

I encourage him or anyone to connect the dots to that--AND explain how the Church has maintained some kind of cognitive dissonance by repudiating any form of idolatry.

 

[MC1171611]

Yeah, I'm sure. And the "Queen of Heaven" is a good person, right? Look it up in a BIBLE, if you have one. The "mother church" has apparently eased up on Bible ownership here over the past few hundred years, i.e. they don't burn people for it (in the U.S. anyhow) anymore.

Why don't you look up Semiramis, Ishtar, Isus Horeb and Seb, as well as the Catholic connection to Islam. Interesting stuff, and no, I have not read any of Chick's books. There's a lot of other good stuff out there too. He's not the only one cataloging it all.

 

[Montanaman]

Yeah, I'm sure. And the "Queen of Heaven" is a good person, right? Look it up in a BIBLE, if you have one.

I have several. I had several before I married a fundamentalist who converted to Catholicism.

The "mother church" has apparently eased up on Bible ownership here over the past few hundred years, i.e. they don't burn people for it (in the U.S. anyhow) anymore.

Generally speaking, I find stereotypes to be a lot of fun, too, but too often misleading. I read Ann Coulter for that very reason, but unfortunately, she's not very quotable in serious discussions.

Why don't you look up Semiramis, Ishtar, Isus Horeb and Seb, as well as the Catholic connection to Islam. Interesting stuff, and no, I have not read any of Chick's books. There's a lot of other good stuff out there too. He's not the only one cataloging it all.

The problem with trying to draw lines between pagan beliefs and Catholicism is that you create a lot of really uncomfortable parallels to your basic and mostly-uncontroversial Christian beliefs. It's kind of silly to say that loving the Mother of Christ comes from paganism, but love of Christ--the actual divinity here--does not.

 

[Montanaman]

Before this gets into an anti-Catholic slugfest, I should just note that I'm trying to stick to the topic at hand. There are plenty of other threads around here about the alleged evils of "Romanism."

 

[MC1171611]

See, my Bible says that there is one mediator, and praying to someone other than Jesus Christ is against the Bible, no matter what any "Pontifus Maximus" says. He doesn't come even close to comparing with the Bible, so why do you even listen to him? Where is all that "ex cathedra" nonsense in the Bible?

See, my God GIVES me Eternal life; all those pagan gods required something in order to give the people a gift. Anything that was worshipped other than the God of Heaven is a devil, or a demon as a lot of new age people like to call them.

Like I said before in a thread called "Queen of Heaven," Mary was nothing more than a glorified incubator for GOD. She was blessed among WOMEN, and as I'm not a woman, I don't care. She's dead and most likely in heaven, but she was a sinner just like you and me. Don't give me this "Immaculate Conception" of Mary nonsense. She was just as much a sinner as you and me. Find me some Scripture against this and I'll listen, but up 'till now all you've provided is opinions. I don't care about opinions.

 

[ttreg]

Anyhow, the FACT is that these people don't want to believe anything that isn't mainstream for fear of looking foolish. I don't care. I'd rather look foolish to the world than to God. The ways of God are foolishness with the world, and the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man, so whatever.

The fact (again) remains that Chisk's material is FOOTNOTED, and his detractors here have REFUSED to provide any EVIDENCE that Chick is wrong. They simply say "Chick says dumb stuff so he's stupid." Now if that isn't about the lamest thing I've heard of.

Oh, and ttrig, you failed to provide ANY Biblical support for homosexuality. If you want to be "pro 'gay' rights," then you should have at least a REASON for it. I know EXACTLY why I'm AGAINST "gays." It's becaues GOD is against homosexuals. And again, don't you even think of editing this or warning me because 1) I said nothing against homosexuals, and 2) I am simply stating a Scriptual FACT.

Have a nice day.

Hypocrite. You just told people to back on topic and now you want to discuss homosexuality?!

 

[Montanaman]

See, my Bible says that there is one mediator, and praying to someone other than Jesus Christ is against the Bible, no matter what any "Pontifus Maximus" says.

How is this about Jack Chick? How does this prove Chick's distortions and lies?

Anyway, we're talking about two entirely different worldviews, my friend. I don't believe that the Bible is the final authority for Christians, although it is inspired, inerrant and authoritative. Even if the Bible DID say that it was the final authority, I'd have to find some way around the logical fallacy committed there--begging the question.

Regarding the claim that the Bible prohibits praying to saints in Heaven, that's for another thread. I see nothing of the kind in the Bible, and in fact, there are strong implications that it says it's a good thing.

Oh, but one more thing--if I pray for you, or you pray for me, we're acting as mediators. No way around that. Our mediatorship still depends on Christ's, of course, but the fact remains no matter how you try to wiggle out of it--if you pray for someone, you're mediating.

He doesn't come even close to comparing with the Bible, so why do you even listen to him? Where is all that "ex cathedra" nonsense in the Bible?

Show me where sola scriptura is, and I'll show you where ex cathedra is.

Nah, no I won't. I'm about to debate an ex-Catholic buddy on this. I'll provide a link to it if I can remember. This forum isn't my regular home.

See, my God GIVES me Eternal life; all those pagan gods required something in order to give the people a gift. Anything that was worshipped other than the God of Heaven is a devil, or a demon as a lot of new age people like to call them.

We agree on that.

Like I said before in a thread called "Queen of Heaven," Mary was nothing more than a glorified incubator for GOD. She was blessed among WOMEN, and as I'm not a woman, I don't care. She's dead and most likely in heaven, but she was a sinner just like you and me. Don't give me this "Immaculate Conception" of Mary nonsense. She was just as much a sinner as you and me. Find me some Scripture against this and I'll listen, but up 'till now all you've provided is opinions. I don't care about opinions.

Opinions are actually exactly what you've provided so far. But no matter. This isn't a debate thread about Mary. It's about Jack Chick's lies and distortions which I've pointed out.

 

[MC1171611]

Hypocrite. You just told people to back on topic and now you want to discuss homosexuality?!

That was a secondary subject, and as seeing that you haven't replied with any decent comeback other than calling me a hypocrite, you must not have any Bible to support your statement. Kinda' what I figured, being that the Bible is 100% AGAINST homosexuality.

I could report you as flaming me, but then I'd look like just like everyone else here (Ps. 119:165).

 

[ttreg]

If you want you can PM me about it because Im not going off topic.

 

[JacobHall86]

Im cool with it going off topic, debate away.

 

[japhy]

I don't believe that the Bible is the final authority for Christians, although it is inspired, inerrant and authoritative.

God's message to us, through the prophets, through Jesus, and through the Spirit, is certainly inerrant, but the physical texts of these messages is subject to whatever physical processes act on papyrus and stone, and the copying process is limited by the scribe's accuracy. I'm not saying the Bible isn't from God, or that it's full of lies, but that the message has clearly not been safeguarded as some would believe.

Apart from the vast numerical differences in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7, my current favorite example of the subjection of the Bible to human errancy is 2 Samuel 21:19 vs. 1 Chronicles 20:5, on the topic of who slew Goliath and who Elhanan slew. I give the issue some consideration here. Other sources are the New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties and Tektonics Apologetics Ministries (in addition to the Apologetics Press linked in the thread I linked to first).

Sorry for the thread-jack, and I'm sure this will incur the wrath of some of the other readers of this thread, but it bears mentioning.

 

[Montanaman]

Im cool with it going off topic, debate away.

Trouble-maker.

What's the deal? You invite me to this thread and I never see you around. Kind of makes me feel used...

 

[JacobHall86]

I dont have browsers at work man, I cant do anything except at lunch. And I would PWN this guy if he wasnt busy PWNing himself. Although I look at the top and I love that I see you, me and Uber, its a 36th take over. We just need to get DBA involved......

 

[RichardT]

oh, your one of those. "King James Only, ITS WHAT JESUS USED, IM GONNA USE IT TO." 'CATHOLICS MURDER BABIES" "THE POPE WORKS FOR THE GERMAN NATIONALIST CONSPIRACY AND IS THE harlot OF BABYLON".

Give it a rest, noone respects teh KJO, noone Respects landmarkism and noone respects the Anti-RCC stance. Your family being catholic doesnt mean you know anything about the RCC, and just because its no in the Bible doesnt mean its bad. Say indoor plumbing, or that computer thing you are on. Keep tryin to show your works, but We arent impressed.

Nice complete misrepresentation of the KJO position.

 

[MC1171611]

Apart from the vast numerical differences in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7, my current favorite example of the subjection of the Bible to human errancy is 2 Samuel 21:19 vs. 1 Chronicles 20:5, on the topic of who slew Goliath and who Elhanan slew.

What is the problem in this passage? His dad's name?? Ok, revolutionary idea: THEY'RE BOTH HIS NAME! Maybe one is a nickname! Different family names, whatever! No problemo!

Wow, what is this world coming to? I'm 18 and I can figure this stuff out....come on guys!

 

[Pepperoni]

Trouble-maker.

...

And I thought I was the troublemaker. Maybe I better change my title.

 

[JacobHall86]

Dude you have NOTHING figured out. You are a KJO, that means you chug the koolaid, not that you figure thigns out.