1. Standard memberDavid C
    Flamenco Sketches
    Spain, in spirit
    Joined
    09 Sep '04
    Moves
    59422
    15 May '06 09:54
    Viewpoints:

    Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Chick

    His homepage: http://www.chick.com/default.asp

    Catholic response: http://www.catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p1.asp

    Seems to me Chick's interpretation of the bible isn't much different than that of individuals like Ray Comfort, FreakyKBH, Darfius, RBHILL, or the Westboro Baptist Church. I understand the desire for moderate (whatever that means) Christians to distance themselves from Chick's brand of proselytizing. My question: if this is what Chick's exegesis of the bible leads to...on what grounds could a Christian disagree? If you say he's not following the Golden Rule, he will simply reply that he is...he's trying to warn Catholics and Muslims they're heading for hell.

    Any takers?
  2. Joined
    12 Jun '05
    Moves
    14671
    15 May '06 10:33
    Originally posted by David C
    Viewpoints:

    Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Chick

    His homepage: http://www.chick.com/default.asp

    Catholic response: http://www.catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p1.asp

    Seems to me Chick's interpretation of the bible isn't much different than that of individuals like Ray Comfort, FreakyKBH, Darfius, RBHILL, or the Westboro Bapti ...[text shortened]... e is...he's trying to warn Catholics and Muslims they're heading for hell.

    Any takers?
    Nice guy, that god...

    http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0082/0082_01.asp
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    15 May '06 10:34
    Originally posted by David C
    Viewpoints:

    Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Chick

    His homepage: http://www.chick.com/default.asp

    Catholic response: http://www.catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p1.asp

    Seems to me Chick's interpretation of the bible isn't much different than that of individuals like Ray Comfort, FreakyKBH, Darfius, RBHILL, or the Westboro Bapti ...[text shortened]... e is...he's trying to warn Catholics and Muslims they're heading for hell.

    Any takers?
    As understanding of the Bible is based on Secret Decoder Rings, you cannot honestly criticize another Christian futher than saying "my decoder ring disagrees with yours". It is impossible via logic to say that one Christian has a more 'accurate' or 'better' view point so do not expect anything more than "I dont agree with him" from anyone.
  4. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36068
    15 May '06 10:37
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    As understanding of the Bible is based on Secret Decoder Rings, you cannot honestly criticize another Christian futher than saying "my decoder ring disagrees with yours". It is impossible via logic to say that one Christian has a more 'accurate' or 'better' view point so do not expect anything more than "I dont agree with him" from anyone.
    One could say the same about the US Constitution.
  5. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    15 May '06 10:45
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    As understanding of the Bible is based on Secret Decoder Rings, you cannot honestly criticize another Christian futher than saying "my decoder ring disagrees with yours". It is impossible via logic to say that one Christian has a more 'accurate' or 'better' view point so do not expect anything more than "I dont agree with him" from anyone.
    Exegesis is more involved then that.
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    15 May '06 12:05
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    Exegesis is more involved then that.
    I would disagree. The Bible and related writings contain many different view points, none of which can be reliably shown to be an accurate transcript of the origional, and none of the Authors are known. Much of the writing is open to interpretation. A typical Christian appears to take the interpretation that either is given by someone apparently more learned in such matters (priest pastor etc) or which best matches their current world view/desires/needs at the time. In general any Christian deriding another Christians beliefs is doing so based on personal interpretation and not on some core proven 'facts' stated in the Bible. Christianity is illogical and one Christian cannot therefore logically substantiate thier beliefs as better than anothers.
  7. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36068
    15 May '06 14:21
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I would disagree. The Bible and related writings contain many different view points, none of which can be reliably shown to be an accurate transcript of the origional, and none of the Authors are known. Much of the writing is open to interpretation. A typical Christian appears to take the interpretation that either is given by someone apparently more lear ...[text shortened]... d one Christian cannot therefore logically substantiate thier beliefs as better than anothers.
    Why can't the same be said about the US Constitution? Or the constitution of any other country?
  8. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    15 May '06 14:48
    Originally posted by David C
    Viewpoints:

    Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Chick

    His homepage: http://www.chick.com/default.asp

    Catholic response: http://www.catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p1.asp

    Seems to me Chick's interpretation of the bible isn't much different than that of individuals like Ray Comfort, FreakyKBH, Darfius, RBHILL, or the Westboro Bapti ...[text shortened]... e is...he's trying to warn Catholics and Muslims they're heading for hell.

    Any takers?
    Everytime you post, you merely confirm what you try in vain to conceal. The absurdities of Chick's publications were brought up previously--- by me. I don't merely distance myself from his thinking, I call it what it is: heresy.

    Your attempt to legitimize your argument by throwing the word "exegesis" in when you clearly have no idea what it means simply puts the cherry on top. Chick doesn't exegete anything. His tracts are nothing more than superficial renderings of otherwise basic concepts. Approaching them from a humanistic viewpoint, the bile he coughs out is as rabid and off base as possible.
  9. Joined
    05 Jan '04
    Moves
    45179
    15 May '06 17:31
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Everytime you post, you merely confirm what you try in vain to conceal. The absurdities of Chick's publications were brought up previously--- by me. I don't merely distance myself from his thinking, I call it what it is: heresy.

    Your attempt to legitimize your argument by throwing the word "exegesis" in when you clearly have no idea what it means simp ...[text shortened]... m from a humanistic viewpoint, the bile he coughs out is as rabid and off base as possible.
    Don't forget me!
  10. SubscriberBigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    bigdogghouse.com/RHP
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    110979
    15 May '06 19:36
    Originally posted by David C
    Viewpoints:

    Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Chick

    His homepage: http://www.chick.com/default.asp

    Catholic response: http://www.catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p1.asp

    Seems to me Chick's interpretation of the bible isn't much different than that of individuals like Ray Comfort, FreakyKBH, Darfius, RBHILL, or the Westboro Bapti ...[text shortened]... e is...he's trying to warn Catholics and Muslims they're heading for hell.

    Any takers?
    I wonder if Mr. Chick is secretly an atheist with a really wicked sense of humor. I know I'm not the only one who finds his tracts entertaining.
  11. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    15 May '06 20:011 edit
    Originally posted by darvlay
    Don't forget me!
    I guess our previous conversation regarding the idiocy of Chick's garbage was lost on David. At least he won't burn in a fiery torment, constantly poked and prodded by a horned devil with a bifurcated tail for the offence (in a room full of homosexuals and abortionists, of course).
  12. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    15 May '06 20:52
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Why can't the same be said about the US Constitution? Or the constitution of any other country?
    For many reasons. We do know the Authors of the Constitution. We have access to numerous other writings of the same authors. We know the philosophy of these authors. We even know what they wanted to put into the Constitution whereas the NT itself is merely a collection of works stuck together hundreds of years after they were written. Do you see any difference yet?
  13. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    15 May '06 20:53
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    One could say the same about the US Constitution.
    One can say anything.
  14. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36068
    15 May '06 21:44
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    For many reasons. We do know the Authors of the Constitution. We have access to numerous other writings of the same authors. We know the philosophy of these authors. We even know what they wanted to put into the Constitution whereas the NT itself is merely a collection of works stuck together hundreds of years after they were written. Do you see any difference yet?
    Not really. What you're pointing out is a quantitative difference - not a qualitative one.

    Besides, even with all the apparent clarity you claim exists with the US Constitution, reasonable people do differ on what is implied or necessitated by the Constitution.
  15. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    15 May '06 22:06
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Not really. What you're pointing out is a quantitative difference - not a qualitative one.

    Besides, even with all the apparent clarity you claim exists with the US Constitution, reasonable people do differ on what is implied or necessitated by the Constitution.
    I have no idea what your first paragraph is supposed to mean. In this case, your so-called "quantitative" differences are sufficiently large to make the interpretation of the Constitution a far more easier task than interpretation of the NT. "Reasonable people" did not call those who disagree with their interpretation of anything servants of Satan or demons or any of the other insane things Jack Chick does.
Back to Top