Chick knock-outs

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sinke
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sinke

Guest
Is it correct to apologeticaly attack Chick publications with remark that they draw devil as Catholic Church described the demon ( with horns and tail ) ?
 
There has got to be an anti-Chick tract, something which compresses the information here , and is factual.

Until then, here’s a webstite:
stjohn17v20-21.com/jtchick/
If you scroll down, it takes you step-by-step through the tracts.
 
Sinke said:
Is it correct to apologeticaly attack Chick publications with remark that they draw devil as Catholic Church described the demon ( with horns and tail ) ?
Click to expand...
If I find one…its destroyed and trashed. If someone offers me one, I tell “satan” to get away from me, and I tell them “Anyone sick enough or bigoted enough to believe those lies…is a disciple of the devil”!!

It is not only correct, but morally correct to attack that hack. I don’t do it “apologetically”…I do it “strongly”. 👍

I recently saw one he did regarding muslims and islam…and I’m really surprised that the arab league hasn’t spirited him off to the middle east for some “re-education”…
 
you did realize the ambiguity of the subject title of this thread right?
LOL
 
One can guess that a remark about ambiguity was correct 🙂

I just wanted to know, since I “invented” that argument, is it usable against Chick?
 
Sinke said:
I just wanted to know, since I “invented” that argument, is it usable against Chick?
Click to expand...
Not really (well, you can use it, but it won’t do you any good). While there’s a good deal to be said on the subject of Jack’s artistic prowess, that he draws the devil as predominantly imagined by Christians in general is a complete non-issue. It’s like taking offense at a restaurant that just served you up a heaping helping from the dumpster because the plate is blue, not green.

Besides, your behorned and betailed devil just harks back to Pan and the satyrs anyway 😉
 
Who Will Be Eaten First is awesome! After reading it and saying the words in the “What To Say” section, I went to the mirror, which definitely told me that I had acquired the Innsmouth look!

:bigyikes:
 
Oh this was rich! I haven’t played RPG’s for over a decade, but the in-jokes had me in near stitches!

FYI, Dark Dungeons is the Chick track JTC got his “facts” from supposed former “Grand Druid” John Todd (the speaker in the tract?)–who claimed the occult conspiracy involved CS Lewis, Billy Graham, and Pat Robertson–incidently after Todd did these “revelations” he was convicted and sentenced for rape (ref catholic.com/library/sr_chick_tracts_p2.asp )
 
Miserissima said:
There has got to be an anti-Chick tract, something which compresses the information here , and is factual.

Until then, here’s a webstite:
stjohn17v20-21.com/jtchick/
If you scroll down, it takes you step-by-step through the tracts.
Click to expand...

Would a tract (with the pictures) be a good medium for showing that, & where, a tract is mistaken, though ? JTC does not argue - he asserts. In a tract, one can do that - showing that the assertions are justified is another matter; as is showing that they are not. And for those, assertion by itself is not enough.​

This is where tracts (& books), with or without pictures, but with lots of words, play their part. Chick’s position is stronger than that of his critics, because assertions are easy to make - especially if there is no reason to doubt their accuracy. And if one lacks the means to do so, one cannot test the assertions. IMO, the success of the tracts is due in part to the sheer variety of things that are asserted. Someone who makes (unqualified) assertions about
  • the religion of the Kaiser
  • Rome’s responsibility for founding Islam
  • Rome’s responsibility for founding the Illuminati
  • The religion of Babylonia
  • The real meaning of I.H.S. on a Host
  • Rome’s attempt to destroy the AV-KJV by having modern Bible versions made
  • & much more, is speaking very confidently, about a great variety of subjects: surely (it may be suggested) no one would speak like this unless he had very solid evidence of the truth of what he was saying ? Especially as the man is a Christian. How many of his readers have the opportunity & means, & the inclination, to see whether what is said is true ?
Many of the matters discussed are obscure. As he says that:
  • I.H.S. on a Host stands for the Egyptian gods Isis, Horus,& Seb
  • & as such things are hardly a matter of discussion by everyone, the obscurity of the statement, & the lack of doubt in making it, can help to suggest it is true. Even though it is not.
A “knock-out” is not going to be easy - especially as a lot of assertions are made or implied in these tracts (as well as the comics & books). Assertion is not difficult (which is itself an assertion :)) - what often takes trouble, is showing why an assertion is mistaken.

For something lighter: members.aol.com/monsterwax/Contents.htm
 
BradW said:
Oh I don’t like the heavy-handed condemning method of cthvangelism. I much prefer the friendship approach of Campus Crusade for Cthulu’s “It Found Me!” campaign!
Click to expand...

Cthvangelism gives the words “Eat me !” a richer, darker, fruitier meaning.​

Another helping of yog[hurt]-sothoth, anyone ? Mmm…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top