Has anyone read this anti- catholic book?

  • Thread starter Thread starter St_Violet
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am a Protestant and I wouldn’t read anything from Chick Publications. They are nothing but garbage.
 
Long time ago, yes. Chick tracts are tiny little leaflets of pure hatred, poorly researched, and often outright lies. Witness his claim that the people who wrote Dungeons and Dragons included actual occult spells – and one of his groupies goes so far as to claim that in his ‘past’ as a Wiccan they consulted his coven for advice! I know I’d like to be able to cast Fireball…
 
How exactly would a Catholic refute the actual claims being about Catholic teachings being made in that tract?
 
Chris_LaRock said:
How exactly would a Catholic refute the actual claims being about Catholic teachings being made in that tract?
Click to expand...
A couple of different ways, I suppose.

Ask 'em to provide their evidence for their wilder claims for starters. For example, about the Babylonian practice of confession. First they’d have to prove that the Babylonians did such a thing, then they’d need to prove the link (if any exists) between it and the Catholic practice. After all, ancient Mayans and Egyptians both had pyramids, that’s not evidence that the one culture was influenced by the other, there are no way the two could have communicated!

Point to the catechism where they’re wrong. For example the tract claims that the Mass is essentially a re-crucifixion of Christ. Our Catechism makes clear that every Mass makes us present again at the once-only event of Calvary, doesn’t make it a re-doing of the event.

Others - just gotta bring in the contradictory evidence. With claims like ‘IHS’ standing for ‘Isis, Horus and Seb’ - just gotta laugh. IHS is actually the first three letters of Jesus’ name in the old Latin alphabet - IHSUS. Do you really think, that being the case, that we’d stamp our hosts with the names of pagan deities instead?!?
 
St_Violet said:
chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp

I was just curious if anyone has ever read that book, and their exat opinions and thoughts about it.
Click to expand...

Great fun, isn’t it ?​

Sorry to be tiresome, but that Babylon stuff is all wrong. Not some of it - all.

It’s based, like many of those tracts & comics & books, on a book called “The Two Babylons”, which traces Catholicism to Babylon in 2181 BC or so. I’ve read it five times, & I keep finding things wrong in it - not things that matters of opinion, but things that wrong no matter what one’s POV.

Take confession in Babylon - TTB only manages to trace it to Babylon, by a rather neat trick 🙂 As follows:

In order to find out the religion of the US for the history an archaeologist is writing in the year 4000 long after the US has vanished, he hears of this thing called the Almighty Dollar. As I know already that gods are called almighty, it is evident that the dollar was the god of the Americans. This fully explains “In God we trust” - that must be a profession of faith in the dollar. What about evidence for belief in Jesus ? He can be explained as a manifestation of the Almighty Dollar. As for His being Jewish - that is obviously wrong, because the Book of Mormon says He came to America. Which in turn would explain why there are so many thousands of quotations from the Book of Mormon in the King James Bible: the worshippers of the dollar-god must have evangelised Europe & brought the Europeans the blessings of the Mormon religion of the dollar.

IOW - TTB finds what the Babylonian Mystery Religion was like, by working from supposed effect to supposed cause. Like my archaeologist in the year 4000, he gets it wrong. When TTB was written, 140 years ago, very little was known about Babylon & Assyria; the author had a great deal of excuse. What is less excusable is the use of the book now, when a great deal more is known about Babylonian religion (which did not start in Babylon, but was already hundreds of years old when Babylon was built) than was able to be known 140 years ago.

What TTB does is put together:
  • the fact that there was an Assyrian Empire
  • the **misunderstanding **of its extent as including India, Babylonia, Greece, Egypt, all at once
  • the false identification of the Biblical Nimrod & the Classical (& non-existent) Assyrian king Ninus
  • the mistaken idea that Babylonia had a mystery religion (this idea was probably based on the script, which is very like Chinese in some ways)
  • an** identification** of the Classical Koes-priests as showing what Babylonian priests were like
    And much more - it’s a long story…
    • Rome is Babylon,
    • it has the same mystery-religion
    • so it has the Babylonian Koes-priests who heard confessions,
    • therefore, confession to priests as practiced among Catholics comes from Babylon.
      It’s entirely wrong. Not that the readers of that tract would know, because the tract gives only the conclusions of TTB - not the mistaken ideas that lead to them. And that is just one error in that tract.
Hope that helps 🙂

As is well-known, the kilt is mentioned in the Bible - Tartan in 2 Kings 7 must have been called after his clothing. As Tartan was a military officer, there must have been regiments of Assyrian Highlanders. The fact that bagpipes were invented in Babylonia supports this.

Why are moccasins so called ? Because the word is a corruption of the Gaelic “mo chasan” - “my feet”. This agrees with the idea that the Highland Fling was taught to the Ojibwa & other tribes, or rather, clans.

All this, proves that the Assyrians invaded Canada

TTB’s argument works much like that 😉
 
Upon seeing the link was to chick.com, I didn’t bother to click it.

I don’t even like their tracts that have nothing to do with Catholics.
 
LilyM said:
A couple of different ways, I suppose.

Ask 'em to provide their evidence for their wilder claims for starters. For example, about the Babylonian practice of confession. First they’d have to prove that the Babylonians did such a thing, then they’d need to prove the link (if any exists) between it and the Catholic practice. After all, ancient Mayans and Egyptians both had pyramids, that’s not evidence that the one culture was influenced by the other, there are no way the two could have communicated!

Point to the catechism where they’re wrong. For example the tract claims that the Mass is essentially a re-crucifixion of Christ. Our Catechism makes clear that every Mass makes us present again at the once-only event of Calvary, doesn’t make it a re-doing of the event.

Others - just gotta bring in the contradictory evidence. With claims like ‘IHS’ standing for ‘Isis, Horus and Seb’ - just gotta laugh. IHS is actually the first three letters of Jesus’ name in the old Latin alphabet - IHSUS. Do you really think, that being the case, that we’d stamp our hosts with the names of pagan deities instead?!?
Click to expand...
There’s one small problem :o 🙂 - what Catholics say, or the CCC says, can always be met by saying that the interpretation that makes the Church look Christian, is not the real truth: it’s for public consumption only. The only reason we *think *(wrongly of course) that IHS is Christian, is that we have not been initiated into the depths of Babylonian Mystery Religion.

Which implies that the author of the book from which this is all taken was extremely well-informed - how could he have known the “real” meaning of Catholicism, if he had not himself been an initiate ?

Conspiracists love this stuff 😉 :eek: 😃

I think the CAF tract needs to be far more thorough - it doesn’t deal with the foundations of this whole idea.
 
Good heavens! Just looked at the list of Chick tracts and it says some of them are ‘specially adapted for black audiences’ … what the … :confused:
 
Techno2000 said:
Just look at the goofy pictures, one looks like a hand trying to
strangle a baby, another the Eucharist push up a woman’s nose,and a Priest with a football helmet on, its Hilarious… :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Aww man! now you convinced me to click that link.

no telling what rubbish I’ll see now!
 
Chris_LaRock said:
How exactly would a Catholic refute the actual claims being about Catholic teachings being made in that tract?
Click to expand...

By looking at the book which it is based on.​

Apart from anything else, Catholics don’t have women priests - in Ancient Iraq, high priestesses were quite normal.

Nor do we rely on divination by lots, examination of sheep innards, or astrology. The CC forbids astrology as a grave sin

Nor do we regard rivers as gods

Or write temple hymns - they did

That’s for starters - real Babylonian & Assyrian religion was in many respects like that of Israel. The likenesses (such as they are) between us & Ancient Iraq can often be explained by likeness to the religion of the OT.
 
Those are much better rebuttals than just saying it’s anti-catholic hate speech.
 
Chris_LaRock said:
How exactly would a Catholic refute the actual claims being about Catholic teachings being made in that tract?
Click to expand...
If you are trying to refute anything to the people at chick.com I don’t know what a person could say that would make them think differently. Just pray for them.

If you are trying to refute it to others, take it away from Catholic/Protestant debate and show them that their source is heavily biased and not reasonable on any front. The Jack Chick tract on Homosexuality (the one they describe as “compassionate”) Depicts them all as Rapists and Murders. It also tells the story of Sodom including having Lot cussing in the same sentence where it says he was righteous?? Te tract that convinced me that Jack Chick tracts should all be garbage was directed to atheists. I didn’t see it in the list there maybe it discontinued but it was just as rude and inaccurate as others I’ve seen. Don’t waste your time on each issue unless the person has a genuine question about it. just show the source as unreliable.
 
Gottle of Geer is the scourge of chick tripe!

👍 👍 👍

I cant wait to see anyone challenge the defense GG just made.
 
Gottle_of_Geer said:

Great fun, isn’t it ?​

Sorry to be tiresome, but that Babylon stuff is all wrong. Not some of it - all.

It’s based, like many of those tracts & comics & books, on a book called “The Two Babylons”, which traces Catholicism to Babylon in 2181 BC or so. I’ve read it five times, & I keep finding things wrong in it - not things that matters of opinion, but things that wrong no matter what one’s POV.

Take confession in Babylon - TTB only manages to trace it to Babylon, by a rather neat trick 🙂 As follows:

In order to find out the religion of the US for the history an archaeologist is writing in the year 4000 long after the US has vanished, he hears of this thing called the Almighty Dollar. As I know already that gods are called almighty, it is evident that the dollar was the god of the Americans. This fully explains “In God we trust” - that must be a profession of faith in the dollar. What about evidence for belief in Jesus ? He can be explained as a manifestation of the Almighty Dollar. As for His being Jewish - that is obviously wrong, because the Book of Mormon says He came to America. Which in turn would explain why there are so many thousands of quotations from the Book of Mormon in the King James Bible: the worshippers of the dollar-god must have evangelised Europe & brought the Europeans the blessings of the Mormon religion of the dollar.

IOW - TTB finds what the Babylonian Mystery Religion was like, by working from supposed effect to supposed cause. Like my archaeologist in the year 4000, he gets it wrong. When TTB was written, 140 years ago, very little was known about Babylon & Assyria; the author had a great deal of excuse. What is less excusable is the use of the book now, when a great deal more is known about Babylonian religion (which did not start in Babylon, but was already hundreds of years old when Babylon was built) than was able to be known 140 years ago.

What TTB does is put together:
  • the fact that there was an Assyrian Empire
  • the **misunderstanding **of its extent as including India, Babylonia, Greece, Egypt, all at once
  • the false identification of the Biblical Nimrod & the Classical (& non-existent) Assyrian king Ninus
  • the mistaken idea that Babylonia had a mystery religion (this idea was probably based on the script, which is very like Chinese in some ways)
  • an** identification** of the Classical Koes-priests as showing what Babylonian priests were like
    And much more - it’s a long story…
    • Rome is Babylon,
    • it has the same mystery-religion
    • so it has the Babylonian Koes-priests who heard confessions,
    • therefore, confession to priests as practiced among Catholics comes from Babylon.
      It’s entirely wrong. Not that the readers of that tract would know, because the tract gives only the conclusions of TTB - not the mistaken ideas that lead to them. And that is just one error in that tract.
Hope that helps 🙂

As is well-known, the kilt is mentioned in the Bible - Tartan in 2 Kings 7 must have been called after his clothing. As Tartan was a military officer, there must have been regiments of Assyrian Highlanders. The fact that bagpipes were invented in Babylonia supports this.

Why are moccasins so called ? Because the word is a corruption of the Gaelic “mo chasan” - “my feet”. This agrees with the idea that the Highland Fling was taught to the Ojibwa & other tribes, or rather, clans.

All this, proves that the Assyrians invaded Canada

TTB’s argument works much like that 😉
Click to expand...
I rather thoroughly enjoyed this post.
 
Chris_LaRock said:
How exactly would a Catholic refute the actual claims being about Catholic teachings being made in that tract?
Click to expand...
Almost 20 years ago - 1988 to be exact - Karl Keating, the man behind Catholic Answers, wrote Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on “Romanism” by "Bible Christians" (Ignatius Press)

To date, no more lucid treatment of Chick by a Catholic apologist has been offered.

One could go through each tract, line by line, to refute it… but to my way of thinking, if you want to understand the source of these tracts this is a great place to start.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top