About your research of Jack's T. Chick tracts...

[Rick-Xto]

Tarsicius:

Rick,
If you want the plain sense of scripture, I suggest you look at John chapter six, here is Jesus not speaking in a parable ( he always goes on to explain his parables afterwards) nor does he try to explain when the crowd and his disiples leave because they can’t bear his teaching. even th apostles are confused and Jesus asks if they want to leave too. If you eat his flesh and drink his blood you will abide in him and he in you. This is the eucharist ( from the greek meaning thanksgiving). Speaking of words in the bible, show me where “trinity” is, I asume you believe in God in three persons. The words that you list are simply names to express the concept found in scripture. They don’t need to be in the bible to express a biblical truth.

A good book for your search is Dave Armstong’s “a biblical defense of catholicism”

God love ya bro!

My God!! AGAIN!! he is talking about participating of His death and this was what gave us the Salvation!!! nothing related to make a ceremony like nowadays in catholic churches (Edited unkind comment abouit the Mass)

 

[pnewton]

sea oat:

But the veneration of the saints as a watered-down practice of polytheism is a very serious charge, and one that doesn’t only come from nutty Chick tracts…it comes from detached Historians and scholars as well.

Cradle Catholics and/or those 100% firm in the Catholic faith may scoff and roll eyes, but it’s deeply disturbing to some of us who are just now coming to the faith.

I doesn’t come from polytheism but from Revelation (the book, not visions).

I, am not a cradle Catholic though. I grew up Baptist, went to seminary, was ordained and served as a minister a few years. I am sympathetic to the accusations made against the RCC, even if I do not agree with the.

 

[Ghosty]

Rick-Xto:

That’s Greek man! nowbody have taught me how to speak or read greek, I don’t need it cause my job is to tell the people about the Salvation Jesus wants to give them not teach them about that eucharisteo is included into Salvation. This eucharisteo word I can addmit I failed, but you answered me only one mistake.

I only used that one because of how funny it was. Each one of your complaints can be answered, and if I thought you were sincere in your query I would feel more up to doing it. The fact is that your approach is so wrong-headed, and factually distorted, that I don’t think much help could come from me pointing out such obvious errors of yours.

Just an example, you talk about the plain sense of Scripture, and the plain words of Jesus, but you ignore the way the “plain words” were understood even by the Apostles. For example, St. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11 about the Eucharist:

23For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

**27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. **

28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

You’re a little quick to say that Catholics are ignoring the plain meaning of the words of Christ, when we are doing nothing less than recognizing the plain words of Paul, describing the plain words of Christ, both in Scripture itself. I really do feel bad that your mind is so clouded that you can’t even read such words.

Peace be with you, I will pray for you.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Rick-Xto:

Hi everyone!

I’m here because I was searching for Chick Publications on the internet and I ended up in this website reading a research that tries to discredit his work. Then I found myself wondering why did someone write a very very extensive research not thinking about the real facts I mean results of Jack’s work but in the mental parameters that we all have (this time I want to exclude me in this last phrase since I was taught the same like you but I did not find a way on that)

What I want to say is: Are you sure you have the truth about Jack? I want to tell you this: God changed my life (He is still doing it indeed) and I’m within this group that have been changed and many have been touched by God with Jack’s Work and it’s just one of many ways God uses to change people’s life. I’m talking about the real change of life not about the religious stuff because as I said before I was taught in this Catholic way, and I can say for sure, that I did not find God into that.

I was dead, I’m alive now. God made me a brand new person without using “the system” cause this system did nothing on me, and I guess it does nothing but keep people controlled with some patterns (orders, laws, God doesn’t like this or this and that kind of things)

When I first read a tract of Jack T. Chick, I thought “this guy has a very cool way to offer the truth to the people” and I can say that this booklets work in a very powerfull way because they are full of God’s way of think and act and not Chick’s way of think or act.

The message always goes to where it has to go: To the broken heart, to someone who needs to change his/her. Of course Jesuschrist is there using his power.

I don’t want to use a very very extensive research to prove this (I can do it), bacause I didn’t need that to believe in God, I only needed another chance from Him. I didn’t need any religious stuff to change my life (repeating this-stressing on this).

I have to say: I’m not with the system but I have to respect it however I can express that I’m against it of course, just like Jack does.

We can talk about this, using “Paper” of course (the Bible and your ver, beause I use Spanish Reina-Valera or King James ver) to refute this.

God bless you all!

If God has used those tracts to strengthen you in Christ, excellent. He can use all things to His greater glory, no matter how worthless they may be in themselves.​

And much of what is in those tracts, and in other publications obtainable from him, is of no value at all except as fiction.

The statements about Catholicism in them are very often sheer fantasy - my own “favourites” are his grossly inaccurate assertions, which five minutes with an encyclopedia would have blown to smithereens, about the supposed origins of Catholicism, its doctrines, worship, and history - they are not his, it must be said, but those of a book on which he relied. It is only a pity that that he did not do some homework.

Fictions, however ever innocently told, remain fictions - and when they are told about religions followed by other human beings they are especially dangerous; they are even more more repulsive if they are deliberate lies, for lying is an abominable sin. I am not accusing Jack Chick, whom I do not even know, of that.

It is quite possible that he is not to be blamed for the fictions in his publications - but, whether he is blameworthy or not (and that is no business of any man), it remains the case that his publications are full of fictions and untruths. And that is not good. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

sea oat:

Wow…well, I just read “Are Roman Catholics Christians?” for the first time on the chick website, and I have to admit some of the claims in there are pretty unsettling. I never read a full anti-catholic chick tract. I’ve just seen sparse panels, and whole comics dealing with other subjects.

I’m going to have to further look into some of this stuff. With all due respect to the catholic.com page, it doesn’t really answer any of Chick’s charges against the Catholic Church. It mostly just attacks his credibility.

I’m worried.

That tract is especially rich in fictions - don’t lose any sleep over it. ​

 

[Rick-Xto]

Ghosty:

You’re a little quick to say that Catholics are ignoring the plain meaning of the words of Christ, when we are doing nothing less than recognizing the plain words of Paul, describing the plain words of Christ, both in Scripture itself. I really do feel bad that your mind is so clouded that you can’t even read such words.

I want to say, I did not mean to talk about the Lord Supper, I have never said you don’t have to do what Jesus said: "this do in remebrance of me"

Plain words…

My mind is not the one who gives this answers… I get clouded when I work in the computer stuffs. There is no reason to be clouded when you are triying to follow Jesuschrist. I’m sincere.

 

[pnewton]

Rick-Xto:

I want to say, I did not mean to talk about the Lord Supper, I have never said you don’t have to do what Jesus said: "this do in remebrance of me"

Plain words…

Rememberance does not mean symbolic, in any language. Something real can be done in memory of someone. One can place real flowers on a grave every year and have real grief, with nothing symbolic at all going on, for the memory of a loved one. Likewise one can really eat the body of Christ in memory of His sacrifice.

 

[NonDenom]

Wow…well, I just read “Are Roman Catholics Christians?” for the first time on the chick website, and I have to admit some of the claims in there are pretty unsettling. I never read a full anti-catholic chick tract. I’ve just seen sparse panels, and whole comics dealing with other subjects.

I’m going to have to further look into some of this stuff. With all due respect to the catholic.com page, it doesn’t really answer any of Chick’s charges against the Catholic Church. It mostly just attacks his credibility.

I’m worried.

Hi All
Funny thing is, I have seen threads on this forum asking if Protestents were Christians, or if you all thought Protestants were going to Heaven? Funny how Jack is evil spawn of satan but it’s ok for you ask those questions.
In Him and Only Him.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Ghosty:

I only used that one because of how funny it was. Each one of your complaints can be answered, and if I thought you were sincere in your query I would feel more up to doing it. The fact is that your approach is so wrong-headed, and factually distorted, that I don’t think much help could come from me pointing out such obvious errors of yours.

Just an example, you talk about the plain sense of Scripture, and the plain words of Jesus, but you ignore the way the “plain words” were understood even by the Apostles. For example, St. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11 about the Eucharist:

You’re a little quick to say that Catholics are ignoring the plain meaning of the words of Christ, when we are doing nothing less than recognizing the plain words of Paul, describing the plain words of Christ, both in Scripture itself. I really do feel bad that your mind is so clouded that you can’t even read such words.

Peace be with you, I will pray for you.

If it helps - what is “plain” to one’s intellectual vision, depends on what is in one’s intellect. That’s why Catholics and Protestants so often don’t agree - what is plain to members of one group, is nothing of the kind to members of the other.​

For example: it is obvious to Dispensationalists that the Rapture is going to occur, because the Rapture is part of their intellectal furniture: their tradition teaches them to expect to find it in 1 Thessalonians 4 - so they find it, in 1 Thessalonians 4. SDAs and Catholics don’t expect to find it, they don’t believe it, it is not part of their intellectual furniture as individuals, or of their doctrines - so they either ignore it, or disbelieve it

And just the Dispensationalists have their doctrines, so do members of the other groups. They read the Bible with their doctrines in mind, so, they find them: even though members of other groups, when pointed to the evidence which agrees with that reader’s beliefs, finds that the evidence says something quite different to him - it does not prove the Rapture, or Transubstantiation, or the Deity of Christ, or the necessity of keeping Saturday Holy as the day of rest, at all: because other things, but not that, are “plainly” present. Yet no one is being dishonest - they are merely being faithful to the religious traditions which they use as their means of understanding the texts they read. ##

 

[Rick-Xto]

pnewton:

Rememberance does not mean symbolic, in any language. Something real can be done in memory of someone. One can place real flowers on a grave every year and have real grief, with nothing symbolic at all going on, for the memory of a loved one. Likewise one can really eat the body of Christ in memory of His sacrifice.

I want to say: I did not use the word symbolic. We do this Supper as something real, the symbolic part was the word’s Jesus used talking about his flesh and blood in his last Supper

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

NonDenom:

Hi All
Funny thing is, I have seen threads on this forum asking if Protestents were Christians, or if you all thought Protestants were going to Heaven? Funny how Jack is evil spawn of satan but it’s ok for you ask those questions.
In Him and Only Him.

He isn’t - but he is often demonstrably mistaken in what he states as fact.​

 

[TheRaiders]

Nondenom, Protestants are Christians, rest your mind. The one’s that willfully ignore the truth are not. They refuse to have that deep faith in Jesus that He gave us one true Church. Or they refuse to give up there considerable power in their non-denomination, or Protestant church.
They could be the spawn of Satan, who knows. I would never classify a whole group of people obviously trying in there own way to be Christians as non-Christians.
Jack Chick does this, and he does it without any decency and in a childish manner.
To ask whether Catholics are Christians, would be a dumb question though because they are practicing a faith of the first Christians. To ask whether a new sect started by someone claiming to be saved is Christian is a valid question. You must look at their core beliefs, and also at how that founder acts.
That is not saying Protestants aren’t Christians, but some sects may not be, though they carry the name.
Patrick

 

[PaulGH]

sea oat:

I just wanted to quickly mention that I finally found a response that makes sense to the main thorn in my side brought up in the chick tract. Thank goodness. And lo and behold, it’s on this site:

catholic.com/library/Is_Catholicism_Pagan.asp

Hi sea oat,

I would also recommend the following two-part article:

envoymagazine.com/planetenvoy/Review-DaVinci-part1.htm
envoymagazine.com/planetenvoy/Review-DaVinci-part2-Full.htm

This is written specifically in response to “The Da Vinci Code”, but the second part in particular addresses many of the common claims about pagan origins of Catholic beliefs and practices. Just click on the second link, scroll down to find the heading “Pagan Roots or Modern Myths?”, and start reading from there.

I hope this helps!

Paul

 

[sea_oat]

pnewton:

I doesn’t come from polytheism but from Revelation (the book, not visions).

I, am not a cradle Catholic though. I grew up Baptist, went to seminary, was ordained and served as a minister a few years. I am sympathetic to the accusations made against the RCC, even if I do not agree with the.

I’ve heard very good arguments on both sides regarding Rev. 5:8 and 8:3-4.

Many say that God considers “the saints” to be both those dead and living, and that the prayers in those verses are those of the living saints. It might seem like a weak argument, but it gains strength when they point out that the Bible strictly warns against trying to contact/communicate with the dead, and that it also specifically says Jesus is the only mediator between man and God.

 

[Subrosa]

Rick-Xto:

I want to say: I did not use the word symbolic. We do this Supper as something real, the symbolic part was the word’s Jesus used talking about his flesh and blood in his last Supper

Hi Rick-Xto -

Just imagine if you are wrong! What are you missing?

Subrosa

 

[sea_oat]

PaulGH:

Hi sea oat,

I would also recommend the following two-part article:

envoymagazine.com/planetenvoy/Review-DaVinci-part1.htm
envoymagazine.com/planetenvoy/Review-DaVinci-part2-Full.htm

This is written specifically in response to “The Da Vinci Code”, but the second part in particular addresses many of the common claims about pagan origins of Catholic beliefs and practices. Just click on the second link, scroll down to find the heading “Pagan Roots or Modern Myths?”, and start reading from there.

I hope this helps!

Paul

Thank you, PaulGH. I’m reading the article right now…

 

[sea_oat]

Ok. I don’t want to speak too soon, but I think I’m finally starting to understand. It’s been sort of emotionally and mentally taxing to wrestle with these issues again, but it’s also been mostly rewarding thus far.

Thank you to all for your help.

 

[deb1]

sea oat:

I’ve heard very good arguments on both sides regarding Rev. 5:8 and 8:3-4.

Many say that God considers “the saints” to be both those dead and living, and that the prayers in those verses are those of the living saints. It might seem like a weak argument, but it gains strength when they point out that the Bible strictly warns against trying to contact/communicate with the dead, and that it also specifically says Jesus is the only mediator between man and God.

Actually it gains no strength. We only ask saints to pray for us, the same as we do our fellow Christians. WOuld you hesitate to ask a good Christian to pray if your family member was sick? Guess what? That good Christian has become a type of mediator for you. THe saints are alive in heaven and can hear our prayers. We aren’t contacting the dead, we are asking our living brothers and sisters to pray for us.

The concept of the afterlife held by some Protestants is very depressing. Think about it, do you really believe that when you die you will stop caring for your loved ones on earth? If you are in heaven, why wouldn’t you talk to GOd about them?

 

[TheRaiders]

Also, it doesn’t make sense to me because John was seeing a vision of heaven, not of earth. The living are not in heaven, and do not get to approach the throne of God with “prayers of the saints”. No, they are mediators. God likes us to ask for things. How many times did Jesus actualy change His divine plans because someone asked him to? The sick asked for healing, others asked him to stay for a meal. They were always asking. Mary asked him to make water into wine, even though He said it was not His time yet. She was his mother though. Our prayers can change God’s will, and the Church teaches that they can do so even in heaven.
Also, in terms of mediators, God chooses to use His creations. We can not begrudge Him that. It seems as if you are empowering Him by saying He doesn’t use mediators, but you are actualy limiting Him. He wants to let us serve. He uses His Saints. Many miracles have been worked with them as mediators. I’m sure you’ve heard of the miracle requirements for Saints. There is little mention of Saints in the Bible, but lets use our heads. At the time the Bible events take place, how many humans were in Heaven? Well, we have Moses, Elijah and…That’s pretty much it. Maybe one or two more. We know this because they were taken up bodily. Of course there was very little praying to the Saints. It wasn’t until the Resurrection that the gates of heaven were opened up. But notice that Moses and Elijah weren’t just sitting around up in heaven. They came down and talked to Jesus at the Transfiguration!
The devotion to the Saints takes a lot of intelectual power to understand. But it takes just a mustard seed of faith. Ask them for help and maybe you will see results. I have. I also know my grandmother helped my cousin when she appeared to him while in a coma, but that’s a different story.
Patrick

 

[sea_oat]

deb1:

Actually it gains no strength. We only ask saints to pray for us, the same as we do our fellow Christians. WOuld you hesitate to ask a good Christian to pray if your family member was sick? Guess what? That good Christian has become a type of mediator for you. THe saints are alive in heaven and can hear our prayers. We aren’t contacting the dead, we are asking our living brothers and sisters to pray for us.

The concept of the afterlife held by some Protestants is very depressing. Think about it, do you really believe that when you die you will stop caring for your loved ones on earth? If you are in heaven, why wouldn’t you talk to GOd about them?

Actually, for argument’s sake, if I’m asking a good Christian here to pray for my family member, I do not have to pray to, or communicate with his/her spirit in that sense in order to do so. It’s very difficult to consider communicating with a physically living person to be the same thing as communicating with the spirit of a deceased person.

However, I’m well aware that the Biblical passages forbidding communicating with the dead are probably referring to necromancy, and I know that Catholic thought considers the deceased saints to be living, and connected to us in Christ, so asking both those in Heaven and on earth to pray for us is essentially seen as the same thing.

My intent of that post, in particular, was more or less just to give an example of a Protestant argument about the verses in Rev. that make sense to me, whether I ultimately accept it or not.