Jack Chick's assumption on why Christianity is correct

[Upchurch]

Jack was brought up again in another thread which always gets me poking around his website for little goodies to play with. On this page (http://www.chick.com/information/general/chickinfo.asp) I found the question posed:

How can you say that all other religions besides Christianity are wrong?

To which, Jack (or someone speaking for him, I gather) replies (my emphesis):The world contains numerous religions, each teaching a different god. These gods are not the same, and therefore cannot all be the Creator. True Christianity is based upon the Bible, the historically verifiable record of what God did in history. When the principles of the Bible are put into effect in a man's life, that life is dramatically changed.
It seems, then, that Jack's entire premise is that the Bible is historically accurate. One would assume that if one could show the premise to be incorrect (i.e. a historical error found in the Bible), all arguements that Christianity is the only correct religion would not necessarily be valid.

There are plenty of evidence that indicates that the Bible isn't historically accurate, to which Jack has replied, through his tracks, by saying those evidences are wrong because it isn't what the Bible says. Isn't Jack just one big Begging The Question (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html) fallacy?

[Samus]

Actually, I think Jack Chick is really the best religious satirist of our times. He's so over the top, he's almost a parody of himself. Those Chick Tracts are crazy!

Indeed, his argument is founded on the assumption that the version of the Bible he refers to is correct (because, as has been noted on these forums, there have been a couple different editions of the Bible).

Of course, one can immediately point out that Bibles were written by humans, and even his beloved edition could have been tainted with human prejudices and human error.

That is the exact reason that you don't rely on one source for all your research. Crikey, I learned that in secondary school, why can't he learn that now?

[Yahzi]

No, it's only Begging The Question if its found on the same web page.

See, one web page says Xianity is true 'cause the Bible is historycal; and a different web page says history is only true if it agrees with the Bible.

See? Different web pages.

So what's the problem?







:D

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by Yahzi
No, it's only Begging The Question if its found on the same web page.

See, one web page says Xianity is true 'cause the Bible is historycal; and a different web page says history is only true if it agrees with the Bible.

See? Different web pages.

So what's the problem?







:D

I have to admit some Christians make bizzare arguements. :D

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Yahzi
See? Different web pages.

So what's the problem? Silly me and my putting related topics together. I gotta work on stopping that before I accidently make a point.

[Barkhorn1x]

Ya gotta love JC;


http://www.chick.com/tractimages12209/5025/5025_18.gif

OK - ya gotta love BOTH of 'em!





;)

Barkhorn.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Upchurch

To which, Jack (or someone speaking for him, I gather) replies (my emphesis):
It seems, then, that Jack's entire premise is that the Bible is historically accurate. One would assume that if one could show the premise to be incorrect (i.e. a historical error found in the Bible), all arguements that Christianity is the only correct religion would not necessarily be valid.

There are plenty of evidence that indicates that the Bible isn't historically accurate, to which Jack has replied, through his tracks, by saying those evidences are wrong because it isn't what the Bible says. Isn't Jack just one big Begging The Question (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html) fallacy?

From a purely logical point of view you are correct. However in practice, you would have a better chance of hitting the lottery than convincing Jack Chick and his followers (chicklets?) that you were correct. Any evidence that ran contrary to what they believe would be either distorted to fit their worldview or ignored. The human mind is funny that way

[aggle_rithm]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

The human mind is funny that way

Yes, but does Jack Chick have one? ;)

[Akots]

Let's not get into the old "is zero a number" argument again...

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by aggle_rithm


Yes, but does Jack Chick have one? ;)

Probably. It takes a certain amount of intelligence to be such a weasle

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


Probably. It takes a certain amount of intelligence to be such a weasle

Not so. Athlete's foot is just as irritating and it doesn't have a brain. A sewer system doesn't have a brain, and a sewer system is just as full of sh*t. A structure made of toothpicks doesn't have a brain, but those fall apart just as easily as any attempt on Chick's part to make a logical argument.

[c4ts]

Jack Chick may have reached the level of stupidity that requires a brain. If he didn't have a brain he'd be smart enough not to write any more tracts.

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


From a purely logical point of view you are correct. However in practice, you would have a better chance of hitting the lottery than convincing Jack Chick and his followers (chicklets?) that you were correct. Any evidence that ran contrary to what they believe would be either distorted to fit their worldview or ignored. The human mind is funny that way

If Rush Limbaugh's followers are 'ditto heads', I would assume Chick's followers should logically be referred to as 's*#theads'.

[Preston]

Originally posted by dwb
Actually, I think Jack Chick is really the best religious satirist of our times. He's so over the top, he's almost a parody of himself. Those Chick Tracts are crazy!


The scary thing about Chick is that he portrays himself to actually be serious.

He's got to be a gimmick, man. Noone could damage their own cause worse than him. I wouldn't be suprised if one day he just came out of the closet and told everyone that everything he did was satire over all these years.

The parodies are hilarious as well.

This is Your Death (http://www.jhuger.com/tract/tyd/index.mv) (Parody of "This is Your Life")

"Dead to Rights" (http://www.jhuger.com/tract/dtr/index.mv) (Parody of"Last Rites").

Check out the Chick Tract Parody Archive (http://www.weirdcrap.com/chick/archive.html) while you're at it.

[Yahweh]

Jack Chick is an utter moron with ignorant beliefs and he should be punished in some way for 'teaching' the bible as being a 'completely truthful and historically accurate account'. I hereby challenge Jack Chick to take the JREF US$1 Million challenge... or minimally become of member of the JREF boards so we can ask him questions of his illfounded beliefs. (This is aimed specifically at Jack Chick) YOUR AN IDIOT!