(Jack T.) Chick Tracts

I actually had to laugh at that one!

I was involved with D&D for many, many years, and although I did learn a lot about the occult, the way the tract presents it is a joke.

I learned about the occult through study, in order to make the game better. Had I met someone involved deeply in the occult, I might have become ensnared like the girl in the tract, but to blatantly lie and try to make people believe that that is all that the game involves is stupid.

I no longer play D&D, and haven't for years. It was becoming my idol... no, it WAS my idol. Although some of the best of times were had while playing it, it became something more than a game to me. So, I had to walk away.

Many of Chick's tracts are of the same vein. Not to mention his King James Version Only slant...

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Tentmaker, it appears that you don't understand what an ad hominem is - C4K criticized the tracts on their own (lack of) merits, not simply because Jack Chick produced them. </font>[/QUOTE]But I do. He the man (hominem) is being accused of being lurid and sensationalist, with out any examples.

 

No, I said the publications were lurid and sensational. I did not attack the man in any regard. To be guilty of what you are accusing me I would have to attack "the man." I have not done so.

Please note the words "I do not like..." Please explain how that is arguement ad hominem. You will not find where I said Jack Chick is lurid and sensationalist. If so, please point it out and I will apologise. There is an arguement ad hominem on this page of the thread, but it is not mine.

I stand by my opinion. Look at any of them that show filthy, unkept homosexuals kissing each other. Very few homosexuals look like that. Most look like your next door neighbour. This is simply one example of the lurid, sensational illustrations. Read THIS TRACT so see an example of the lurid sensationaliam I am taking about.

[ October 24, 2005, 07:52 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Would you consider this lurid and sensational?

From link above


Moderators please feel free to edit my post if you feel it is inappropriate.

 

I liken them to a crime scene or trainwreck or car accident you just can't turn away from.

 

He can't show their hearts and natures. Perhaps that is why he shows them in their physical appearance?

 

He can show it through what the characters say and do in his stories.

Which only reinforces the deadly belief that evil is visually repulsive and virtue is always visually attractive.

 

Unlike some people I can't form an opinion on something about which I know nothing.:laugh: I think I've heard of them.

 

Having finished reading Doom Town there are some errors I've noticed.

First, in the tract one of the characters made the comment "She's MY wife, you (deleted)". Yet the Biblical account says that when Lot offered his daughters, they weren't interested, they wanted the men.

Second, another frame states that "even children weren't safe from their gross perversions". There is NO Biblical account of children being forced into this activity.

I don't agree with his KJVO stand nor with his rabid anti-Catholicism, but some of his tracts are good nonetheless and I own several of them. I simply sort out the good from the bad.

 

The two men were talking among themselves about a third man.

Maybe not, but it's happening today. He may have been a homosexual, or a pedophile, both of which lead perverted lifestyles - and both of them target children.

Me too. I try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater...

 

This is strange...
It shows that I voted the poll and that I have seen them and that I most certainly use them..

The only thing I use them for is to line bird cages!!
Why does it show up that I voted.

I cannot stand Chick Tracts.

I just wanted the record to be straight.

 

With all of the excellent resources available for Christians to use as witnessing tools, why would anyone use material that is:

• Needlessly offensive (not talking about offensive in the sense of "the offense of the cross." This guy pushes buttons just to do it)
• Badly written/drawn.
• Full of inaccuracies/bad data.
• Guilty of taking liberty RE scripture interpretation

Sure, folks have been reached with Chick tracts. But many more have been turned off. There's much, much better stuff out there.

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

The wording on the poll has been changed, but by whom?

 

I am in the process of handing out all of the chick tracts that I have, then I will buy another kind that sells for about $0.02 each instead of $0.10 each (chick tracts) Plus these other are lighter then the chick tracts which makes it easier to send through the mail without paying extra postage..

 

Agreed. Once I had the displeasure of translating one of the Chick Tracts into another language and boy I had a hard time. It didn't make sense either theologically or culturally. Now I am not saying there are no good tracts among them, but in general, just as C4K said, it borders on sensationalism.

 

My vote is wrong also. I most certainly do not use Chick tracts.