are chick tracts truthful?

[sneezingleopard]

Hi I just have a quick question. I was hoping to find out if you guys think Jack T. Chick's "chick tracts" contain accurate information or if you feel they are mostly lies. I won't debate the issue with you and it's possible I won't even respond at all. I just want to get an idea of what you all think. It would also be cool if you could say whether or not you have ever helped give them out to people.
In Christ,
Matthew

[ZiSunka]

OOOOOH NOOOOOO!

Please let's not have another chick tract thread!!!!!!! :eek:

[JimfromOhio]

Hi I just have a quick question. I was hoping to find out if you guys think Jack T. Chick's "chick tracts" contain accurate information or if you feel they are mostly lies. I won't debate the issue with you and it's possible I won't even respond at all. I just want to get an idea of what you all think. It would also be cool if you could say whether or not you have ever helped give them out to people.
In Christ,
Matthew

Let's just say... a freedom of speech to discuss spiritual issues. Whether tracts contain accurate information or not, its up to each reader to investigate and discern on their own. This is how I did it. I read a my first chick tracts over 25 years go (maybe longer).

Other than that, let's leave it at that. It's better not to discuss this. ;)

[mesue]

Hi I just have a quick question. I was hoping to find out if you guys think Jack T. Chick's "chick tracts" contain accurate information or if you feel they are mostly lies. I won't debate the issue with you and it's possible I won't even respond at all. I just want to get an idea of what you all think. It would also be cool if you could say whether or not you have ever helped give them out to people.
In Christ,
Matthew
What have you decerned? Study what is contained in the tracts ans find out for yourself. That's what I had done. I have to say that, as Roman Catholic, I found them to be very offensive and yet oddly informative. It makes for an interesting study. Do not let one man be the end all of anything, good or bad, on this planet. Let God's word be the end all.

[Ragamuffins]

I wouldn't line a bird cage with them as they may be offensive to even birds. Seriously they are flawed beyond belief.

[TwinCrier]

They are very truthful and based on the bible. That's why they are offensive. I personally love to be offended by the truth, it eventually leads to change for the better. Too many people today want to make God line up with their beliefs instead of lining their beliefs up with God's.
The Light of the World DVD is awesome.

[sneezingleopard]

If a few of you think I should take this thread down just let me know and it will be taken away. Thanks for the answers.
In CHrist,
MAtthew

[Joykins]

I think they are full of hate.

[No Swansong]

I have used Chick Tracks effectively and found them useful. I must say however I am very careful about each and every one. He is wrong about many of his assertions concerning the Roman Catholic Church. Of course unfortunately I have found that he is right about a few things too. His basic tracts like "This was your life" (I think that is the correct title) and "Holy Joe" and "Little Shoes" I found to be effective tools.

I know that many may disagree with this idea but we give them out with little treats in baggies on beggars night. I have also used them in personal evangelism, many years ago.

Like any literature that you use, be cautious. It is true whether we like to admit it or not "Chick Tracts Get Read".

[PaladinGirl]

are chick tracts truthful?

ROFLOL! You are joking right?

[aReformedPatriot]

This summer my friend gave me about 60 chick tracts out of the blue as I told him I had an interest in reading them. I thought it was hilarious because I had often heard of them yet never seen any. They covered various topics most of which were simply the gospel. I found them very good. I found a few on Roman Catholocism and no Catholic in their right mind would enjoy reading Chick. He believes that the Roman Catholic view is another Gospel and as Paul says "not that there is another Gospel" so of course he views Catholicism as a cult.

In my personal experience, not all chick tracts are bad.

For my personal tastes of ministry, I do not like giving out tracts nor getting them.

MOD HAT ON

Because of the topic of this thread I wish to remind all NON B/A members to not debate here, I will be watching this thread. That goes for the rest of you, play nice and do not flame one another. :)

MOD HAT OFF

[Willo]

I have to say I like some of chicks tracts, some I am not keen on, but others are really good.

Although now when it comes to tracts I prefer to use tracts from http://livingwaters.com

[MrJim]

I have to say I like some of chicks tracts, some I am not keen on, but others are really good.


"This Was Your Life" was the first real presentation of the gospel I read. I found the tract and the story always stuck with me. Some others mentioned are pretty good-I remember one about a homeless kid that dies in an alley that was a nice & simple story.

I'll pass on the Catholic ones-they are rather hateful-they could more effectively reach the Catholic audience with better presentations. There is a story-telling talent there...whether you like them or not. Remember the one about the witches and the demons are waiting for the devil to finish watching "Bewitched". That was a good story. I've probably got 80-90% of those tracts up in the attic somewhere...

[MbiaJc]

Hi I just have a quick question. I was hoping to find out if you guys think Jack T. Chick's "chick tracts" contain accurate information or if you feel they are mostly lies. I won't debate the issue with you and it's possible I won't even respond at all. I just want to get an idea of what you all think. It would also be cool if you could say whether or not you have ever helped give them out to people.
In Christ,
Matthew

One can learn from everyone, whether they are truthful or not. If one does his homework and study the scriptures to see if what they are saying is so. Which by the way is one of the first things the first Christians did. Was search the scriptures to see if what the Prophets were saying is so.

If what a person is saying is true, you have gained a brother. If false you have exposed a lie.

[mesue]

I think they are full of hate.

:scratch: You've read them all?
Which one was the most hateful?
Which one was the least hateful?

[JPPT1974]

I'll pass on the Catholic ones-they are rather hateful-they could more effectively reach the Catholic audience with better presentations. There is a story-telling talent there...whether you like them or not. Remember the one about the witches and the demons are waiting for the devil to finish watching "Bewitched". That was a good story. I've probably got 80-90% of those tracts up in the attic somewhere...

I didn't know that they are hateful. Since they came from a Catholic ones. Which is shocking and surprising.

[arunma]

I don't find Chick tracts hateful, per se. But I do find them to be rather stupid. The problem with Chick tracts is that they are offensive. Christians aren't supposed to offend people with anything but the Gospel. If a Catholic is offended when we say that salvation is by faith in Christ Jesus, apart from works of the Law (such as sacraments), then we're doing our job correctly. Making up stories that the RCC caused the Holocaust, that Catholics invented the Muslim religion, or that they're part of a secret conspiracy to take over the world, is not in step with the Gospel.

The Bible says that we should do what is honorable in the sight of all. If we offend people with anything but the Gospel, then the offense is of human origin rather than divine origin. This is why I find Chick tracts to be ridiculous. I think that Jack Chick creates these things out of a genuine desire to save souls. I just think he's a false teacher.

[ZiSunka]

To the most extreme orthodox protestant interpretation of some of the verses of the Bible, yes, they are faithful and true. To the more mainstream orthodox protestant interpretation of a greater part of the Bible, no, they are too extreme to be of any use.

[Joykins]

Most hateful hands-down...the one called "Lisa", currently out of print, which pretty much says its OK to molest your own small child with no consequences as long as you get saved. :sick:

[TwinCrier]

Most hateful hands-down...the one called "Lisa", currently out of print, which pretty much says its OK to molest your own small child with no consequences as long as you get saved. :sick:Are you sure that wasn't a parody? There are lots of people who mock Chick tracts and print or place on the web their own take. I'm pretty up on all the tracts and I don't recall one called Lisa or any story resembling what you mentioned. Here is one site that poke fun at the tracts: http://www.weirdcrap.com/chick/intro.html

[MrJim]

Are you sure that wasn't a parody? There are lots of people who mock Chick tracts and print or place on the web their own take. I'm pretty up on all the tracts and I don't recall one called Lisa or any story resembling what you mentioned. Here is one site that poke fun at the tracts: http://www.weirdcrap.com/chick/intro.html

No, the "Lisa" one is true Chick. The dad even loans out the kid to the neighbor so he doesn't get squealed on. A doctor inspects Lisa and finds signs of sexual abuse and confronts the dad and offers the gospel.

Never thought about it before, but yeah, shouldn't the doc have turned him in for the crime?

[arunma]

No, the "Lisa" one is true Chick. The dad even loans out the kid to the neighbor so he doesn't get squealed on. A doctor inspects Lisa and finds signs of sexual abuse and confronts the dad and offers the gospel.

Never thought about it before, but yeah, shouldn't the doc have turned him in for the crime?

Really? Wow, I must have missed this one. That's quite revolting.

[No Swansong]

I remember Lisa, and I am pretty sure that it was a Chick Tract, which is now unavailable. If I remember correctly the thrust of the tract was not that it is OK to molest your daughter as long as you get saved, but that even if you do something as heinous as molesting your daughter, Christ's sacrifice is still sufficient providing true repentence etc.
If I accurately remember the tract I thought the delivery was pretty disgusting but the message (again if I remember it correctly) was true and accurate.



Are you sure that wasn't a parody? There are lots of people who mock Chick tracts and print or place on the web their own take. I'm pretty up on all the tracts and I don't recall one called Lisa or any story resembling what you mentioned. Here is one site that poke fun at the tracts: http://www.weirdcrap.com/chick/intro.html

[No Swansong]

No, the "Lisa" one is true Chick. The dad even loans out the kid to the neighbor so he doesn't get squealed on. A doctor inspects Lisa and finds signs of sexual abuse and confronts the dad and offers the gospel.

Never thought about it before, but yeah, shouldn't the doc have turned him in for the crime?

Mandatory reporting is the law concerning health care professionals in every state. Who must report, (physicians, RN's, Medics etc.) and to whom reported, differ.

As a Medic we are in very tough positions most of the time in my state. The normal practice is to report our suspicions to the physician to whom we will turning over care. (usually we deal with RN's but when we need to report something like this we usually find the physician for litigious reasons.)

Of course this was a ficticious event so....

[Andyman_1970]

I just think he's a false teacher.

I agree.

He presents the Gospel as “you don’t want to go to Hell do you???” – which is not the way that Jesus framed the Gospel. IMO we do the Gospel a great injustice when we only focus on “getting out of Hell” instead of the wonderful message that God desires to reconcile and restore His creation to how He originally created it to be.

He’s pretty rabidly KJV only also…………………. :sick:

[Andyman_1970]

I don't see the point of being offensive to people. That logic doesn't seem too far removed from Rev. Fred Phelps in Topeka Kansas.............I would hope no one on here thinks that kind of behavior is acceptable for a follower of Jesus.

[edit]

If we're not sharing the Gospel in a loving way do we really love God, 1 John 4:19-20.

[TwinCrier]

If we're not sharing the Gospel in a loving way do we really love God, 1 John 4:19-20.If we only show the gospel one way we are going to miss a lot of people. I wasn't saved by all the nicey-nicely smiling Christians, i was saved because someone showed me what a sinner I was. It's not productive to say there is only one way to win people to Christ.

[Joykins]

I don't see the point of being offensive to people. That logic doesn't seem too far removed from Rev. Fred Phelps in Topeka Kansas.............I would hope no one on here thinks that kind of behavior is acceptable for a follower of Jesus.

www.landoverbaptist.org (http://www.landoverbaptist.org/) (yes that's a real church site, it's the site of Rev. Phelps church).



Just a point of correction, the Landover Baptist site is a spoof site. Phelps's church is called Westover Baptist.

[Joykins]

If we only show the gospel one way we are going to miss a lot of people. I wasn't saved by all the nicey-nicely smiling Christians, i was saved because someone showed me what a sinner I was. It's not productive to say there is only one way to win people to Christ.

There's a difference between true conviction of sin, and fire insurance. My observation is that fear-of-hell preaching/teaching motivates the latter attitude; also these people are more likely to leave because they placed their faith in the wrong thing (fear of hell rather than the grace of God).

[Andyman_1970]

Just a point of correction, the Landover Baptist site is a spoof site. Phelps's church is called Westover Baptist.

oops, I get those two mixed up, thanks for the correction.

[Andyman_1970]

If we only show the gospel one way we are going to miss a lot of people. I wasn't saved by all the nicey-nicely smiling Christians, i was saved because someone showed me what a sinner I was. It's not productive to say there is only one way to win people to Christ.

First to clarify, I don't win people to Jesus, God does that, I'm simply the messenger.

I agree, but that's a two way street with the whole "it's not productive to say there is only one way to win people to Christ." - as most of the fire and brimstone types I interact with think when you are loving and sharing the Gospel in a loving way your "watering down the Gospel". These people also are under the false notion that the Gospel is all about getting into Heaven........... :doh:

[Andyman_1970]

There's a difference between true conviction of sin, and fire insurance. My observation is that fear-of-hell preaching/teaching motivates the latter attitude; also these people are more likely to leave because they placed their faith in the wrong thing (fear of hell rather than the grace of God).

I agree. I think that's the result of simply presenting the Gospel as "you're getting out of here" instead of teaching that Jesus taught the best way to live right here right now and taught that by living this way we can bring Heaven to earth.

Anyway, well said sista............. :thumbsup:

[arunma]

I don't see the point of being offensive to people. That logic doesn't seem too far removed from Rev. Fred Phelps in Topeka Kansas.............I would hope no one on here thinks that kind of behavior is acceptable for a follower of Jesus.

[edit]

If we're not sharing the Gospel in a loving way do we really love God, 1 John 4:19-20.

I don't see the point in offending people either. There's a highly offensive preacher who comes to my university campus every September. By his own admission, in 30 years of preaching, he's only gained one proselyte. If anyone else in the crowd is converted, it's probably because of the Christians who argue with him, rather than his own preaching.

Unfortunately, the only thing the "angry Gospel" does is to create more angry Christians. And that isn't good, since the apostles teach us to live peacably with others.

[TwinCrier]

Noah didn't get any converts and he preached for 100 years. I'm sure people were offended by his idea that God would destroy the whole world. The gospel is very offensive to a sinner. I think most churches would just rather love people to hell then convict them to heaven.

[Andyman_1970]

Noah wasn't presenting the Gospel of Jesus, kinda apples and oranges there........

God desires to restore His creation (the Gospel in a nutshell), no destroy it as in the days of Noah.

[Andyman_1970]

............... since the apostles teach us to live peacably with others.

Jesus says by our oneness the world will know He is real, not by how we share the Gospel, not by how much we preach against sin, not by how doctrinally correct we are...........

[arunma]

Noah didn't get any converts and he preached for 100 years. I'm sure people were offended by his idea that God would destroy the whole world. The gospel is very offensive to a sinner. I think most churches would just rather love people to hell then convict them to heaven.

TwinCrier, it is possible to love people without sacrificing sound doctrine. I think my church happens to do it quite well. Our pastor does preach hellfire, but he doesn't deliberately attempt to insult or offend people. Why can't the fundamentalist churches simply preach the Bible, and let it be offensive for itself? Again, offending people does not constitute living peacably with all.

By the way, just out of curiosity, where does the Bible say that Noah did any preaching? No really, I don't know.

[Andyman_1970]

I've seen several tracts of his that harped on homosexuality like it is "the" sin.

It's funny I did a quick serach of his site and didn't see anything on gossip, gluttonany, or any of the other "lite" sins we as Christians like to overlook............ :scratch:

[Joykins]

Noah didn't get any converts and he preached for 100 years. I'm sure people were offended by his idea that God would destroy the whole world. The gospel is very offensive to a sinner. I think most churches would just rather love people to hell then convict them to heaven.

You can't love people to hell. Love does not move in that direction.

[Father Rick]

I haven't seen all of them, but I do know that much of the info in those I have seen regarding the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are grossly in-accurate, if not down right fraudulent

[Andyman_1970]

I guess what offends me the most about things like evangelizing Catholic's and Othodox Christians is that we are making a pretty big assumption they are not followers of Jesus. I hate to say, but I know more than one Baptist church that is filled with just as many (if not more) people who claim to be Christians but have never really surrendered to Jesus.

I have a very good friend who is a Catholic and he is just as saved as you and I.

Anyway, that's just a thought.

[arunma]

You can't love people to hell. Love does not move in that direction.

Not to mention that it says, "Whoever does not love abides in death." (1 John 3:14).

[Joykins]

In fact love is the supreme commandment, the sum of the law. Love is of God, and anyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Says so right in the Bible.




7Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

8He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

9In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

10Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

11Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. 12No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

[mesue]

Most hateful hands-down...the one called "Lisa", currently out of print, which pretty much says its OK to molest your own small child with no consequences as long as you get saved. :sick:

I don't think it says there are no consequences, just that even rape, or baby rape, is a forgivable sin if one is saved. Jesus shed His blood to attone for all sin. But one still has to pay the consequences for any sin commited.

[Joykins]

I don't think it says there are no consequences, just that even rape, or baby rape, is a forgivable sin if one is saved. Jesus shed His blood to attone for all sin. But one still has to pay the consequences for any sin commited.

It doesn't show any consequences, just the father telling his family that everything is going to be hunky dory now. Also lovely subtext of it being the man's wife's fault.

Linky http://www.angelfire.com/on/3angels/lisa.html

[TwinCrier]

TwinCrier, it is possible to love people without sacrificing sound doctrine. I think my church happens to do it quite well. Our pastor does preach hellfire, but he doesn't deliberately attempt to insult or offend people. Why can't the fundamentalist churches simply preach the Bible, and let it be offensive for itself? Again, offending people does not constitute living peacably with all.

By the way, just out of curiosity, where does the Bible say that Noah did any preaching? No really, I don't know.I never said it wasn't, though it is much easier to offend a sinner when you preach AGAINST sin than pussyfooting around it. I can't help it if people get offended by the gospel, it's not my responsibility to make them believe it, just preach it as I am able.

2 Peter 2:4-5 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

I presume people asked him about that boat he was building, though many today probably think the whole Noah thing is a parable or something anyway. :doh:

[mesue]

It doesn't show any consequences, just the father telling his family that everything is going to be hunky dory now. Also lovely subtext of it being the man's wife's fault.

Linky http://www.angelfire.com/on/3angels/lisa.html

I prefer to go to the source. That tract just didn't look right.
I don't think that was ever published by Chick tracts, I could be wrong and would be woman enough to admit so :)
Here's a link to the listings at Chick tracks:
http://www.chick.com/catalog/assortments/0915.asp
http://www.chick.com/catalog/tractlist.asp

[Willo]

Remember if you preach the gospel people will get offended.

Just look at the fate of Christain martyrs, and also look at the Apostles, and what happened to them.

Why are we surprised when the most Holy man of all of history was also the most hated, why then do we expect to be treated any better?

[InnerPhyre]

As a Catholic who is frequently handed all kinds of tracts on campus, what always surprises me is how many of them are directed toward Catholics and how few of them actually understand what Catholics believe. They will say things like "Salvation comes from faith in Jesus alone, and not through praying rosaries or lighting candles in church." Of course, no Catholic in his right mind thinks that praying the rosary and lighting candles will save you. I think what offends us the most is the misrepresentation of our faith. Even if you disagree with our belief in the Eucharist, you don't have to make up stories about how we started believing it because we were imitating Egyptian Paganism to get your point across and if you want to complain about the Vatican, you don't have to make up stories about how Islam was a creation of the Vatican. The only Catholics you will convert with such things are those who know nothing about their own faith.

[ZiSunka]

I guess what offends me the most about things like evangelizing Catholic's and Othodox Christians is that we are making a pretty big assumption they are not followers of Jesus. I hate to say, but I know more than one Baptist church that is filled with just as many (if not more) people who claim to be Christians but have never really surrendered to Jesus.

I have a very good friend who is a Catholic and he is just as saved as you and I.

Anyway, that's just a thought.

A lot of catholics and orthodox are not followers of Jesus, just like a lot of baptists, methodists and even (gasp!) mennonites are not followers of Jesus. Just because you grew up in a certain church or joined a certain church as an adult doesn't mean you are saved. By sharing the Good News with people of these other faiths, you are insuring that they have heard that there is a way to peace with God. It's not wrong to speak to other Christians about the Good News, it's a good faith affirming thing. :)

[No Swansong]

If we only show the gospel one way we are going to miss a lot of people. I wasn't saved by all the nicey-nicely smiling Christians, i was saved because someone showed me what a sinner I was. It's not productive to say there is only one way to win people to Christ.


I understand what TwinCrier is saying here. I had a number of people show me that God is Love, and wouldn't it be nice to spend eternity with Him. It was only when I was shown to be a sinner, and the results of that Sin that I seriously started to consider eternity. I cannot say it was fear of Hell that led me to Christ, but I am sure that the watered down "come on it would make God really happy approach that a few people tried probably would not have. (Remember I was unregenerate and had no true desire to please God)

[No Swansong]

TwinCrier, it is possible to love people without sacrificing sound doctrine. I think my church happens to do it quite well. Our pastor does preach hellfire, but he doesn't deliberately attempt to insult or offend people. Why can't the fundamentalist churches simply preach the Bible, and let it be offensive for itself? Again, offending people does not constitute living peacably with all.

By the way, just out of curiosity, where does the Bible say that Noah did any preaching? No really, I don't know.



To be fair I don't think that TwinCrier is advocating purposely insulting people. Additionally, the Gospel message in it's entirety, is insulting to those not saved. Most unsaved people are very insulted by showing them they are a sinner in need of a savior. I for one am very happy that my best friend showed me that I was a sinner in need of the Grace of God. It was in learning that I was a sinner, and in learning what the results of that sin is, that I came to appreciate the depths of Gods Grace. (at least as far as a human can)

[No Swansong]

In fact love is the supreme commandment, the sum of the law. Love is of God, and anyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Says so right in the Bible.

To Love God, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. But is it loving to not show those who are not saved their eternity without Christ?

[No Swansong]

I called an old friend of mine who has a lot of Chick Publications. He told me that he doesn't have Lisa but does have an old catalog that lists it. So I do believe that it was a Chick Tract.




I prefer to go to the source. That tract just didn't look right.
I don't think that was ever published by Chick tracts, I could be wrong and would be woman enough to admit so :)
Here's a link to the listings at Chick tracks:
http://www.chick.com/catalog/assortments/0915.asp
http://www.chick.com/catalog/tractlist.asp

[Andyman_1970]

Most unsaved people are very insulted by showing them they are a sinner in need of a savior.

That is such a small portion of the Gospel, we tend to focus the entirety of the Gospel on "hey you don't want to go to Hell do you?" instead of sharing that God desires for people to have the best possible life right now here on earth, not just when they die and go to be with Him. It's no wonder people get insulted when they only hear part of the Gospel.......

[No Swansong]

That is such a small portion of the Gospel, we tend to focus the entirety of the Gospel on "hey you don't want to go to Hell do you?" instead of sharing that God desires for people to have the best possible life right now here on earth, not just when they die and go to be with Him. It's no wonder people get insulted when they only hear part of the Gospel.......

You feel that the fact that we are sinners and thus separated from God and in need of salvation is a small portion of the Gospel?

If it were not for our sin there would have been no need for Christ's sacrifice. Christ's sacrifice is the central point of the Gospel.

[Joykins]

I think the Love of God is such a pure, powerful thing that it does lead to conviction of sin.

I've been reading some near-death experience narratives recently. Some are obviously non-Christian and others are obviously Christian (if that makes any sense) anyway, this sort of thing:

What I meant by telling the light to put me back, was to put me back into the pit. I was so ashamed of who I was, and what I had been all of my life, that all I wanted to do was hide in the darkness. I didn’t want to go toward the light anymore – I did; yet I didn’t. How many times in my life had I denied and scoffed at the reality before me, and how many thousands of times had I used it as a curse. What incredible intellectual arrogance to use the name as an insult. I was afraid to go closer. I was also aware that the incredible intensity of the emanations might disintegrate what I still experienced as my intact physical body.

The man who had this experience went on to become a minister.

[Andyman_1970]

You feel that the fact that we are sinners and thus separated from God and in need of salvation is a small portion of the Gospel?

Read the Gospels in their 1st century Jewish context, Jesus doesn’t spend a whole lot of time talking about the afterlife. When Jesus uses the term “eternal life” it’s the Hebrew word olam haba, which not only speaks of life after death, but more importantly describes a life lived in harmony with God, right here right now.

Jesus speaks more about how to live right now here on earth than dealing with the afterlife, which to be honest was not that much of a concern for a 1st century Jew.

Now that said, to clarify, I do believe that through Jesus He becomes the ultimate sacrifice for sin, we no longer need to go to the Temple and do all that other stuff.

If it were not for our sin there would have been no need for Christ's sacrifice. Christ's sacrifice is the central point of the Gospel.

I agree, the purpose of that sacrifice was to reconcile His creation and begin to return it to how He originally created it to be. The Gospel is about reconciliation and restoration not just getting to Heaven when we die.

[PaladinGirl]

I'll be frankly honest. As an ex-Inquirer into the Catholic Church, Chick Tracts are and were deeply offensive to me. To say that the Eucharist came from some Pagan tradition in Egypt about worshipping some false god is not only a false theory, it is deeply offensive and would do absolutely nothing to convince any Catholic who knows anything at all about their faith. I am not saying that I still believe in the Eucharist or transubstantiation, I honestly don't know what to believe about this. I am just saying that Chick Tracts can be deeply offensive to people. It almost seems like he'd rather offend than win souls sometimes.

If Chick wanted to win Catholic souls to the Evangelical/Fundamentalist Protestant side, he'd be better off using well grounded arguments on things like sola scriptura in his tracts. Chick tracts come across to a Catholic as nothing more than worthless trash for the most part. I can almost guarantee that no Catholic would be saved by reading one of the anti-Catholic tracts he has.

That said, I don't really think that all Chick tracts are bad but I do have a very hard time trusting any of them because of what seems to be the ignorant lies in some of the other tracts.

To those of you who noticed, I did originally call myself an "ex-Catholic". That term is not fully accurate because I was never confirmed a Catholic so I was never officially Catholic. I was an inquirer into the Catholic Church. However, I did believe in what I knew.

[InnerPhyre]

.

[mesue]

I called an old friend of mine who has a lot of Chick Publications. He told me that he doesn't have Lisa but does have an old catalog that lists it. So I do believe that it was a Chick Tract.
Well, apparently, they thought better of it and pulled it off the market as it is no longer listed.
I have to wonder if we would be this hateful towards Jack Chick if he were a secular basher of, ... oh, I don't know ... adulterous divorced moms?
You, anyone here "hating" Chick are no different, as far as I'm concerned, than you portray him to be. We, who claim to be spiritual, are supposed to show more grace than what I have read in this thread. What makes you better than Chick?

[InnerPhyre]

If I had the means, it sure would be amusing to pay some folks to sit outside of Jack Chick's house in a black van with antennas coming out of it wearing clerical vestments and looking around with binoculars just to see how long it would take for him to run down the street screaming that the covert Vatican operatives have come for him.

[arunma]

Mesue, it is possible to love the sinner and hate the sin. I hate Chick's teachings, because they are false.

[mesue]

Mesue, it is possible to love the sinner and hate the sin. I hate Chick's teachings, because they are false.

Then bash the tracts, not the man.

[Miss Shelby]

Then bash the tracts, not the man.
lol. The man writes the tracts.

He was exposed as being untruthful with his Alberto Rivera tracts. I'll have to do some digging to find the article, but it's been proven that he lies to make his point.

Michelle

[Miss Shelby]

Gary Metz, a protestant evangelical wrote two articles exposing him as a fraud.

1) "The Alberto Story," Cornerstone, vol. 9, no. 53, 1981, pp. 29-31. http://www.cornerstonemag.com/pages/show_page.asp?228

2) Christianity Today, March 13, 1981.


Michelle

[arunma]

Then bash the tracts, not the man.

That depends on how you define bashing. I think it's right to call Jack Chick a fraud or a false teacher (I called him the latter). It isn't right to express hatred of him, or to wish him ill. What statement have I made to which you object?

By the way, this is precisely how I feel when people here attack Roman Catholics and other liberal Christians (not that I agree with liberal theology).

[Father Rick]

If I had the means, it sure would be amusing to pay some folks to sit outside of Jack Chick's house in a black van with antennas coming out of it wearing clerical vestments and looking around with binoculars just to see how long it would take for him to run down the street screaming that the covert Vatican operatives have come for him.LOL...

I've got the vestments and the binoculars if you know someone with a black van!:P

[mesue]

lol. The man writes the tracts.

He was exposed as being untruthful with his Alberto Rivera tracts. I'll have to do some digging to find the article, but it's been proven that he lies to make his point.

Michelle
So, that's okay, then?
Say you wrote something that I didn't like, that gives me the right to bash you?
Please note that I have already stated how I felt about these tracts pages ago.
I just feel bad that he's getting beat up here. If he were pushing some other agenda, I feel, people would show more grace towards him around here. I mean isn't that what is "preached" around here?
By the way, this is precisely how I feel when people here attack Roman Catholics and other liberal Christians (not that I agree with liberal theology).
Then why can't we show the same grace you would hope for for the Roman Catholics and other liberal Christians
And practice what you preach, walk your talk.
That's all I'm saying.

[FreeinChrist]

I remember reading some Chick tracts. Some certainly seem truthful, though not necessarily welcomed by the unbeleiving such as this one:


http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.asp
I am not saying Jack Chick is necessarily correct - or sensitive or tactful - in all of his tracts.

[aReformedPatriot]

MOD HAT ON V.2

Hello everybody, remember that only Baptist Anabaptist Members may debate here, for the guests, please do not go beyond simply fellowship posts. If you have a question ask it, but do not dispute its answer based on your dislike of it.

Thank You kindly
TLE :wave:
MOD HAT OFF

[Miss Shelby]

I just feel bad that he's getting beat up here. If he were pushing some other agenda, I feel, people would show more grace towards him around here. I mean isn't that what is "preached" around here?
I hope that God has mercy on him. But when dishonest tactics are used to supposedly spread the good news, I think it undermines the message. I think it's compromised by the messenger if you will. Does Jack Chick deserve God's love and mercy? Sure. But I see nothing wrong with letting people know that he uses underhanded tactics so that people can beware... it's just a caveat. It's only fair, I mean the man has placed himself in the public eye which means he's subjected himself to public scrutiny.

Michelle

[JimfromOhio]

Maybe we should title this "are chick tracts tactful"? The answer is clearly a NO.

[Joykins]

Are Chick tracts truthful?
Are Chick tracts tactful?
Are Chick tracts tacky?
Six sick Chick tracts tick.
Six sick Chick tracts tack.

Now say THAT 10 times fast!

[aReformedPatriot]

Staff Review