The Face Of Chick?

by Jimmy Akin

in Non-Catholic Apologists

JackchickWhat you are looking at may be the first known, recent photo of Jack T. Chick (left) to emerge on the Internet.

It is found on the home page of Victory Baptist Church in Clarkston, Michigan and is captioned as "Jack Chick & Pastor Bob Nogalski, Summer 2006."

The figure alleged to be Chick is holding a copy of his tract Bad Bob! and pointing to Pastor Nogalski because of the similarity of Pastor Nogalski’s life story to that of the character Bad Bob.

The Victory Baptist Church web site also includes Pastor Nogalski’s testimony regarding his life and how it intersects with Bad Bob’s.

VIEW THE PICTURE IN THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT.

READ PASTOR NOGALSKI’S TESTIMONY.

READ "BAD BOB!"

Now, the question on the minds of most JA.O readers will be: Is the photo of the reclusive Chick authentic?

In our day and age, photos certainly can lie, and so I’d be interested to know what PhotoChoppers can make of the picture’s authenticity. That’s a subject I can’t speak to, but perhaps we’ll hear from some of them in the combox.

What I can say is this: The man in the picture does look (apart from the comic expression on his face) much like I remember Jack Chick looking when I met him at the premier of his film, Light of the World.

YOU CAN READ ABOUT THAT HERE.

And here’s the picture I drew of Chick after the event:

Jackchick2_1

I can also say that the setting in which the picture was taken lends some credibility of the photo. It looks to me like the descriptions of the foyer of Chick Publications that I’ve read. I would guess that Pastor Nogalski visited Chick Publications in Summer 2006, met Chick, and (impressed by the pastor’s testimony regarding his connection with Bad Bob) Chick let the picture be taken, likely not realizing that it would find its way onto the Internet.

I’ve thought about driving up to visit Chick’s offices. They’re just a couple of hours up the road from me. But I’ve never done it.

Maybe after this picture, I will.

(BTW, a TEN GALLON CHT to the reader who e-mailed!)

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!


What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy

{ 155 comments }

Karen February 16, 2007 at 1:38 am

It’s a kinda funny picture. He looks like he’s doing the Stephen Colbert pose.

Tim J. February 16, 2007 at 5:43 am

It looks authentic, to me, but whether it is of Jack Chick, I couldn’t say.
Or COULD I? Mwah-ha-ha-ha!

My Cat's Name Is Lily February 16, 2007 at 5:57 am

I find myself unable to get past the part of the pastor’s testimony where he says that he “set his pants on fire”.
Or maybe that’s why Chick–if it is Chick–has such a silly look on his face….like he was on the Price is Right, & they just called his name…..

Brent Robbins February 16, 2007 at 6:24 am

Maybe I’m being silly here, BUT…who cares what Jack Chick looks like?

Chad Toney February 16, 2007 at 6:28 am

Check out their “Statement of Faith”! It is really something to behold.

Jon February 16, 2007 at 6:41 am

Aha! He’s been found! Alert the killer albino monks! Oh, wait… I think I’m confusing my silly authors. Nevermind.

Slowboy February 16, 2007 at 7:42 am

Funny, I expected him to be dressed in some neo-Nazi uniform and burning the Pope in effegy. Goes to show how you really can’t see people’s souls. I wonder if he has any conception of how much evil he’s done. I wonder if he takes any of this seriously or one day will be reveled as an athiest having fun.

Anonymous February 16, 2007 at 7:45 am

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/KharBevNor/blackmetalchickcopy.gif
Did you see this drawing of Chick? — someone altered yours, I think.

Christine the Soccer Mom February 16, 2007 at 8:31 am

Your story about meeting Chick was fascinating! I remember seeing one of his tracts after it had been stuck through the slots of my locker in high school. (I think someone did a big drop of them.) I’d never seen anything like it before, though it was not blatantly anti-Catholic.
I remember being completely amazed at the hostility of some Fundamentalists towards Catholics. First time I ever heard that I wasn’t really a Christian, I was 19, and this girl told me. I laughed and said, “Catholics are the original Christians!” She moved on to the “born again” thing, which I’d never heard (outside of Gospel readings as Mass). It was strange, to me. Of course, I’m a cradle Catholic whose father has been a Knight of Columbus since I can remember. In my childhood, everyone was Catholic! I knew most of the kids in my CCD classes because I went to school with them. My parents’ friends were all Knights and on the Ladies’s Auxiliary. I did know some people who weren’t Catholic, but no one (until that girl at work) had any kind of problem with us! :)
Boy, I feel bad for people who believe these things about the Church. They so need our prayers.

Bryan February 16, 2007 at 9:08 am

What? Chick’s offices are a couple hours from you? That must mean they’re like 10 minutes from me… What down are they located?

DJ February 16, 2007 at 9:47 am

The first time I ever read Chick Tracts was when someone, and I have a good idea who, left a couple of them on the kitchen counter. I remember reading them thinking, “ok, this is kinda funny, but not that funny.”
Then it hit me that he was serious.

Veronica February 16, 2007 at 9:57 am

The account of your meeting with Mr. Chick was indeed fascinating. Personally I imagined him being a bitter old man, paranoid to the point of living in a fortress with a tinfoil hat on his head at all times, judging from the bile he spews in all his comics and his nutty Vatican conspiracy theories.
The very first Chick tract I ever read was one about a boy who died and went to Hell, finding out that his ‘friend’ was actually Satan, making fun of him for not accepting Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior. Very disturbing for my 15-year-old mind, and mostly pointless, as it only made me feel that God was rather cruel and unfair for condemning to hell somebody who didn’t even know what he had done wrong. I simply shrugged it off, thinking that the artist had very serious personal issues… seems I was right! :)
I didn’t read another Chick comic for several years, until I found one in the house of a friend that was about the Virgin Mary. I picked it up thinking that it was a Catholic publication, and was almost dumbstricken at the load of BS that I read there. It was almost as disturbing as the one I had read before, though not nearly as much as another tract I found in the same house, this time talking about the Eucharist, which had a picture of a person taking communion, unknowingly receiving a demon within the sacred host.
That, in my opinion, is the most blasphemous thing I’ve ever seen, and it really creeped me out, even though I knew it was nothing but a load of Protestant s***. This guy really needs our prayers, I can only imagine all the evil his publications have done. Mr. Chick will certainly have a lot to answer Jesus for, though I certainly think He will show him much more mercy than what Jack gives Him credit for (judging from the first Chick tract I read as a teenager).

bill912 February 16, 2007 at 10:07 am

I hope he’s mentally ill. Perhaps that would reduce his culpability.

bill912 February 16, 2007 at 10:08 am

I hope he’s mentally ill. Perhaps that would reduce his culpability.

Tim J. February 16, 2007 at 10:13 am

” I knew it was nothing but a load of Protestant s***. ”
As much as I sympathize with your reaction to that, Veronica, it would be a mistake to assume that Chick’s main problem is his Protestantism. There are Protestants who are respectful of the Catholic view of the Eucharist, even if they don’t believe it. There is a broad range of Protestant belief on the Eucharist, with some coming very near to Catholic thought on it. Others, well…
Chick’s problems go way deeper than that.

My Cat's Name Is Lily February 16, 2007 at 10:20 am

“It was almost as disturbing as the one I had read before, though not nearly as much as another tract I found in the same house, this time talking about the Eucharist, which had a picture of a person taking communion, unknowingly receiving a demon within the sacred host.
That, in my opinion, is the most blasphemous thing I’ve ever seen, and it really creeped me out,”
WHAT?????
That is, without doubt, the most atrocious thing I have heard yet!!
I have seen some really stupid, & yes, insulting, things in Chick tracts, but that kind of accusation goes even beyond vile, or tasteless, or bigoted. You are absolutely right, Veronica: That is blasphemous in the extreme!!

Kris February 16, 2007 at 10:51 am

I remember my first major encounter with Chick Tracks. I had a summer job in a warehouse and I would find these angry little booklets in the bathroom–almost a new issue everyday. After reading “The Death Cookie” I was too offended to simply just flush it down the toilet and I brought it up to my manager. Turns out he was the one placing them! Well, I went a step up in the company hierarchy and finally got them to force the manager to quit placing them.
If these hatefull little booklets are finding their way into your workplace, by all means do not keep quiet. Anti-Catholicism, for some reason, remains acceptable in mainstream society, even in the PC world we live in. We have to do what we can to defend the Church and ourselves from this type of hate.

Esau February 16, 2007 at 11:08 am

Is it just me or does the guy on the right look like Bosley from the TV Series, Charlie’s Angels???
Ahhh… probably just me.

Curious February 16, 2007 at 12:52 pm

Jimmy,
The picture looks funny to me. I have a passing interest in image processing and fauxtography and two things bother me in the picture. First, “Mr. Chick” seems to be sharper in resolution than Pastor Nogalski. Note how sharp all the interfaces look on “chick”, while the pastor looks blurrier. Also, “chick” looks much more lit up than the pastor. If one looked at the picture in Photoshop with high magnification, it might be possible to find more indications of funniness.
But, I can’t think of why one would go to the trouble of photoshopping such an image. I guess my conspiracy skills are lacking.

Curious February 16, 2007 at 12:59 pm

Maybe my concerns are the effect of the flash hitting chick straight on, while the pastor is off to the side. You can see the flash on the wall centered on chick. This would explain the funny lighting, but the differing sharpness?

Curious February 16, 2007 at 1:02 pm

Maybe my concerns are the effect of the flash hitting chick straight on, while the pastor is off to the side. You can see the flash on the wall centered on chick. This would explain the funny lighting, but the differing sharpness?

David B. February 16, 2007 at 1:29 pm

“Mr. Chick” seems to be sharper in resolution than Pastor Nogalski.”
He always looks that way.
“Note how sharp all the interfaces look on “chick”, while the pastor looks blurrier. Also, “chick” looks much more lit up than the pastor.
That’s because he’s got the devil in him.
(tongue in cheek?)

Weeze February 16, 2007 at 3:18 pm

Chick looks like a cardboard stand-up to me.

Esau February 16, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Chick looks like a cardboard stand-up to me.
That makes sense; I mean, what happened to his left shoulder?

bill912 February 16, 2007 at 3:29 pm

Esau, I think it’s just the way his arm is positioned, plus the fact that he’s turned a little to the left. I just positioned myself like that in front of a mirror and my left shoulder looked like his.

Tim February 16, 2007 at 3:41 pm

I second Brent. What’s the big deal about a photo of Chick?

Esau February 16, 2007 at 3:41 pm

But bill912, if Chick is actually resting his left shoulder on that guy’s chest; wouldn’t you still see a portion of his shoulder?
Also, it’s kind of weird how if the Chick person there is real, why isn’t there a greater impression left on the other guy’s shirt as he’s actually leaning against him?
I mean, look at how uniform the impression (wrinkle) is on the guy’s blue (?) shirt — the same impression that would be left if it’s merely a cardboard figure.
If it were a real person, wouldn’t there be a greater impression (i.e., more wrinkles) on the other guy’s shirt since the weight of Chick’s left shoulder/arm is actually resting against it?
Instead, it’s seems to be just a straight line; again, the same kind of indentation that would actually be left by a cardboard figure because of its edges.
It just doesn’t look right.

Veronica February 16, 2007 at 3:44 pm

“As much as I sympathize with your reaction to that, Veronica, it would be a mistake to assume that Chick’s main problem is his Protestantism.”
Oh I know. I have very good and sincere Protestant friends, and I’m sure that fanatical fundamentalist Protestants are probably in the minority. Admittedly Jack’s has mental issues, however, his fanatical version of Christianity definitely played a role here.
“I have seen some really stupid, & yes, insulting, things in Chick tracts, but that kind of accusation goes even beyond vile, or tasteless, or bigoted. You are absolutely right, Veronica: That is blasphemous in the extreme!!”
Yes it is. “The Death Cookie” is what this comic full of Satanic-disguised-as-Protestantism lies is called. I do not reccommend anybody to read this, it will be hard to keep the blasphemous images out of your mind. I sincerely hope that Mr. Chick repents of all the evil he has done. Perhaps he is sincere in his belief that the Catholic Church and the Eucharist are evil, but lying outright like he has done, citing dubious sources and making wild assumptions without bothering to double-check the facts is still dishonest and cowardly. What a difference his tracts would have made in the world if he had talked about God’s love instead of talking about Satan!

bill912 February 16, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Oh, I agree it’s cardboard. Look at the angle at which Chick is leaning to the left.

bill912 February 16, 2007 at 3:47 pm

There is also a lot of reflected light in the background on either side of Chick’s head, but little or none on his glasses.

bill912 February 16, 2007 at 3:53 pm

There seems to be a lot of light on Chick and Nogalski. Nogalski is squinting, while Chick’s eyes are wide open.

Esau February 16, 2007 at 4:04 pm

There is also a lot of reflected light in the background…but little or none on his glasses.
That depends; if he has anti-reflective coating on his glasses (that is, if the Chick guy was actually a person), you wouldn’t really notice any reflection on his glasses.
Also, there seemed to be a hint of a reflection on the glasses (in the approx. center of the left lense; top left corner on the right), but can’t really tell because of the blurry nature of the photo. Then again, you can simulate that on a cardboard as well.
Nogalski is squinting…
I thought that was just because he was smiling.

Rhys February 16, 2007 at 4:15 pm

Now we have a photo of Jack Chick.
Now, who will be the first to photoshop Jack Chick?

Inocencio February 16, 2007 at 4:20 pm

Photo caption
NO, it is I who will eat you!
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

~ February 16, 2007 at 4:39 pm

That, and the older article where you met Jack Chick was interesting. That photo above does resemble a card board pic tho.

JV February 16, 2007 at 4:57 pm

Does anyone else think his expression is very much like his cartoons?

J.R. Stoodley February 16, 2007 at 5:07 pm

It’s not cardboard. Look at where his arm is pressing into Nogalski. It wouldn’t look like that with cardboard. Also his hand is clearly sticking out because it is not pressed against Nogalski.
It could be photoshopped for all I know but in that case why use a cardboard cutout. Also why if you had a rare photo of Jack Chick would you use it to produce a big cardboard cutout of all things?
I suspect the photo is real, and that Chick won’t be inviting this Pastor Bob over again.

Esau February 16, 2007 at 5:18 pm

J.R. Stoodley:
Please refer to my Feb 16, 2007 3:41:56 PM post.
Again, if you look at the wrinkle on the guy’s blue shirt, it’s seems to be just a straight line; again, the same kind of indentation that would actually be left by a cardboard figure because of its straight edge.
If it were an actual person, I would think that there would be more wrinkles appearing on the guy’s blue shirt, as Chick would seem to be leaning against the guy next to him (therefore, placing much of his weight or, at least, pressing his shoulder against the other guy) as well as the fact that the pattern of wrinkles would be more sporadic than a mere straight line, which, again, would be expected from a cardboard figure because of its straight edges.
Plus, wouldn’t the portion of his left shoulder still remain visible???
Yet, it seems odd that this isn’t the case and all we have is his hand protruding there.

Aaron February 16, 2007 at 6:32 pm

I think it’s far more likely that a photo of Jack Chick leaked onto the internet than that someone *found* a picture of Jack Chick making a ridiculous face and made a realistic life-size cutout.
Plus, you can see that Chick’s arm has the same harsh shadow against his body as his head has against the wall.

David B. February 16, 2007 at 7:31 pm

“I suspect the photo is real, and that Chick won’t be inviting this Pastor Bob over again.”
Why is that? Is Chick afraid of photography?

Kathryn February 16, 2007 at 9:02 pm

That picture creeps me out, IMHO. Real or not, he’s definitely cooky.

My Cat's Name Is Lily February 17, 2007 at 4:36 am

“Mr. Chick” seems to be sharper in resolution than Pastor Nogalski.”
“Note how sharp all the interfaces look on “chick”, while the pastor looks blurrier. Also, “chick” looks much more lit up than the pastor.”"
Pastor Nogalski has apparently always been a bit dim; he admits on his own site that he ;-0 set his pants on fire……

Christine the Soccer Mom February 17, 2007 at 8:36 am

If Jack Chick, indeed, does not allow for his picture to be taken, how in the world would someone manage to have a life-sized cardboard cutout of the man?
If he’s photoshopped in, how in the world does this Pastor Nogalski expect people to believe him about anything when he lied about this picture?
And, I have to wonder just a bit why we’re discussing the picture in such depth.
The strange things that can fascinate us (myself included, of course)! :)

Mike February 17, 2007 at 9:06 am

Here’s a parody of a Jack Chick tract that someone I know did:
http://swaft.info/cheek/cheek0.html

Kate February 17, 2007 at 11:38 am

“Does anyone else think his expression is very much like his cartoons?”
This was my first impression as well, that he looked like his own drawings!

Peony Moss February 17, 2007 at 11:48 am

“Does anyone else think his expression is very much like his cartoons?”
I sure do.

Sean S. February 17, 2007 at 12:04 pm

The problem with Chick isn’t that he’s Protestant…it’s that, in his world, God is cold and distant and Satan is underneath your bed. Conversion is motivated, not by love of God or of fellow man, but by fear of Hell and chainsaw wielding demons.

phatcatholic February 17, 2007 at 12:11 pm

For a collection of articles in refutation of Jack Chick, go here:
http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat/273
Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Anna February 17, 2007 at 12:22 pm

If you identify Jack Chick as the enemy, just remember that we’re supposed to love our enemies.
Otherwise, I’m with Brent and Tim. Why should we care what he looks like?

Jared February 17, 2007 at 1:44 pm

I think we should care what he looks like simply because he apparently doesn’t want us to know what he looks like.

bill912 February 17, 2007 at 1:52 pm

Don’t worry, Jared; we have secret pictures of him in the Jesuit Data Base. We have his home and office bugged. He can’t make a move without us knowing about it.

J.R. Stoodley February 17, 2007 at 2:17 pm

He doesn’t want people to know what he looks like because no doubt he does sometimes go into public, and he has made so many enimies he doesn’t want to deal with the animosity of strangers. At least that is what I assume.
I wouldn’t blame him for that, I would blame him for the words and actions that earned him that bad reputation.
And Sean, yes, part of the problem is simply that he is Protestant. Protesants are always heretics in the objective sense, if not always in the subjective sense. That is a problem, especially since he is an old-school Protestant who activly protests the truth.
It is true though that we should love our enimies, including Jack Chick. We should pray that he converts and gets employed by someone like Catholic Answers, working to undo the damage he has done.

Tim J. February 17, 2007 at 2:59 pm

Careful, bill. I don’t know if Mr. Chick has the ability to discern the humor in your remark. It could end up in one of his tracts as *proof* of the Catholic/Pagan/Atheist/Hollywood/Masonic plot to keep The Truth from being revealed.
Plus, he might sic Bad Bob on you.

bill912 February 17, 2007 at 3:13 pm

What humor? We have a complete dossier on you,too, Tim.

Tim J. February 17, 2007 at 3:40 pm

Gasp!!

Anthony A Rodriguez February 17, 2007 at 5:46 pm

My two favorite comics are
1. The Muslim one how the Catholic Church founded Islam.
and
2. The one I think called the Godfathers how the Catholic Church created than killed the Russian Orthodox hierarchy, Communists, Masons, the Mafia and the Catholic Church is the real sinister creator of all of this.
The art is decent, it is present quasi-logically, but if it wasn’t so far out and historically inaccurate it would be,well, I don’t know what
to laugh or cry
but it is so far out and ridiculous yet taken seriously by so many people

Jared February 17, 2007 at 7:51 pm

Speaking of “the files” bill912: Yours arrived on my desk this morning due to your recent breach of secrecy. Not wise, sir. We, at the Hollywood office, are not pleased. Your flail and cilice will be tainted with Mongolian influenza this week. If you survive, we’ll be expecting an 800 word essay on “Why I found it necessary to tell the world about our clandestine ties.” Either that, or your can just write “I will not share secrets” 100,000 times on the black board located beneath the Stalin-Capone archive in the Mohammedan Commons. Whichever assignment you choose will be due by Feb. 28 and one quarter (new non-leap-year calendar, of course).

Ashok February 17, 2007 at 8:15 pm

The “fact” that the Catholic Church invented Islam to take over Jerusalema and kill Christians and Jews is amazing.

A Simple Sinner February 18, 2007 at 11:56 am

This question keeps popping in my head:
Why is Chick so reclusive with so few photographs? Does it speak to a level of paranoia? Maybe he thinks Vatican agents will be able to find him?
Of course, if the Vatican did create and control Islam, Masons, Communism, etc… why haven’t Vatican agents “taken him down” if he thinks that is what they do?
IT is all kind of scary to me – the fact that he is so paranoid and dellusional married to the fact that his tracts are distributed in the millions. HE may be nuttier than a box of frogs, but there are thousands of otherwise pretty sane people who distribute his tracts with a belief he is very right…
The first time I found a Chick tract was in the semployee break room at a place I worked – I figured out who was leaving them there and I was flabbergasted it was the SWEETEST woman that worked in the joint. A little nutty, but sweet.
The fact that nice and genuine people get sucked in by a recluse who publishes WILD claims L. Ron Hubbard can’t touch. It is scary and sad.

J.R. Stoodley February 18, 2007 at 6:02 pm

by the way, nice drawing, Jimmy.
By the way, Jimmy should already know this since it says “used with permission” but the Wikipedia article on Jack Chick uses his drawing. Neat.

A Simple Sinner February 18, 2007 at 10:42 pm

BTW, why on earth would anyone create a photographic standup of Jack Chick?
It occurs to me that if the photo WAS a fake, the pose suggests that the “stand up” was made out of a photograph from a similar circumstance…. I mean unless the face was photo-shopped unto another body, that pose suggests posing for a photo….
At the very least – even if THAT photo is doctored, it suggests that a photo WAS posed for. But is this a KNOWN issue with JTC? Does he disassociate with anyone who takes his photo/does not pose for photos?

A Simple Sinner February 18, 2007 at 10:42 pm

BTW, why on earth would anyone create a photographic standup of Jack Chick?
It occurs to me that if the photo WAS a fake, the pose suggests that the “stand up” was made out of a photograph from a similar circumstance…. I mean unless the face was photo-shopped unto another body, that pose suggests posing for a photo….
At the very least – even if THAT photo is doctored, it suggests that a photo WAS posed for. But is this a KNOWN issue with JTC? Does he disassociate with anyone who takes his photo/does not pose for photos?

Jared February 19, 2007 at 1:47 am

Simple Sinner: “…why haven’t Vatican agents ‘taken him down’ if he thinks that is what they do?”
Simple Sinner, we don’t ask such things ’round here. Not if we want to keep posting in the blog-world with all ten fingers.
Note to Bill912: Before you start spilling the beans … ahem … I mean MAKING UP RIDICULOUS STORIES … about how Chick is secretly a Jesuit plant (like Mohammed), remember your most recent punishment.
Jack Chick is NOT NOT NOT NOT a Vatican agent. He told me so himself. No wait, I mean, I’ve never met the guy!
Oh DANG IT!

Jamie Beu February 19, 2007 at 7:35 am

I got a copy of “The Death Cookie” tract. It was so full of ridiculous misinterpretations, I thought it was hilarious. I actually showed it to the girl that I was sponsoring into the Catholic Church that Easter. She was amazed that someone would go to such extremes of lunacy.
BTW, yes, she still got baptized and confirmed into the Catholic faith. Every once in a while, we will call each other, to make sure we’re still “eating the death cookie”.

Stu February 19, 2007 at 8:55 am

Turnabout is fair play.
http://swaft.info/cheek/cheek0.html

Christine the Soccer Mom February 19, 2007 at 10:39 am

nuttier than a box of frogs
THAT is a fantastic phrase! I might just find myself using it.

kbujcmdpi lqpvweu February 26, 2007 at 7:40 pm

rkud lauezgso mkhyg kfoinlujd eojmpgqw uqiecvds orwqa

reduas April 13, 2007 at 11:21 am

It’s time to update this Wikipedia with new photo!
Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Chick
Anyone care to update? LOL!

William April 13, 2007 at 5:28 pm

I used to give out Jack Chick tracts. I’ve been a Catholic for 28 years. Guess God gets the last laugh.

StubbleSpark April 13, 2007 at 7:07 pm

I have a coworker who likes to casually refer to the pope as the anti-Christ. Being exposed to incidents like this and the Jack Chick tracts really makes me wonder why the same approach does not work on Protestants.
Why is it that a Protestant (or Dan Brown, or Hislop, or Carpenter) can cook up the most cockamamy stories, provide only dubious or circumstantial evidence, and it instantly is accepted as the gospel truth when at the same time everyone KNOWS that Luther changed Christian theology inventing Sola Scriptura out of whole cloth and CHANGED THE BIBLE yet no one thinks this is pertinent to the whole Protestant-Catholic thing?
It is true
It is undisputed
It is historically accurate
It is undeniable
Yet you never see Jack Cath tracts with diabolical portrayals of Luther taking it upon himself to alter a 1,500 year-old canon in order to replace it with an OT used by Jews who rejected Christ and a NT that fit his dumbed-down version of Christianity.
Why?
y?

StubbleSpark April 13, 2007 at 7:27 pm

By the way, that photo is real.
1) The top of Chick’s left forearm is being lit by the pale blue light reflecting off Bob’s shirt.
2) Creases in the Chick’s right shirt sleeve match the placing of Bob’s fingers.
3) There is a slightly unnatural curve to Chick’s upper torso to accommodate Bob’s arm around him. If Bob did not really have his arm behind Chick, he would be very uncomfortable standing with his chest thrusting while leaning.
4) The door jam to Bob’s right catches part of the same flash that is set squarely on Chick’s head. Because door jams angle inward, it catches a part of the flash but the flat door and wall on either side do not.
5) Pixelated edges occur “naturally” in digital photos and digitized photos. I remember earlier last summer there was an uproar over Reuters altering photos and suddenly everyone thought that even pictures of Castro were fake. But clearly they were not.

Mary April 13, 2007 at 7:37 pm

People see what they want to see.

StubbleSpark April 13, 2007 at 7:56 pm

About Chick’s desire for secrecy:
He is, after all, on a list of who’s who for 13 April birthdays. Listed, for some odd reason, as a “cartoonist”. Kind of like calling Nero a “violinist” if you ask me.
So he is famous. Way more famous than I will ever be, that is for sure.
But I admire his desire to shun the spotlight. After all, he is a cartoonist and not an actor, or singer, or American Idol attention-hog. I am betting even Dan Brown could not be recognized by the average person despite the fact he slathers his likeness both on his book covers as well as in his text as the hero. Also, there is a virtuous aspect in how he will not exploit his fame for worldly gain — very much unlike the great heresiarchs of Mohammed, Luther, and Smith.
Then again, Chick is from an altogether lower choir seeing as he is not so much creating new heresies as he is just collecting and recycling old lies about an entity he obviously sincerely believes is Satanic.
OTOH, secrecy would have to be part of the whole act, now would it not? I mean, the more he pretends to duck around and slink in his holy shadows, the more credibility he adds to his fantasies. Kind of like a Bible-bearing Walter Mitty.
Could he tell stories about an institution so powerful and cruel as his image of the Catholic Church and not at least PRETEND to be afraid for his life?
This begs another question: If this is how he gains credibility, then why are not those who print, ship, sell, and pass out these pamphlets also afraid for their lives? I remember when I was an alien conspiracy monger in college, I never felt like telling people the deep dark secrets because I feared for them as much as I feared for myself.
The whole set-up seems anything but heroic for Chick and calls into question the degree to which his followers actually buy in to what he preaches. Could it possibly be that their highest loyalty is not to the Truth but to the Effect?
Which is one of several reasons why you would not want Pastor Bob to display his jpegs on his website.
1) It reveals your secret identity
2) It shows how no one cares about your secret identity and thus
3) Diminishes your credibility as a clandestine conspiracy theorist

StubbleSpark April 13, 2007 at 8:00 pm

Or maybe he just thinks he is making a weird face…

MarkAA April 13, 2007 at 9:01 pm

I always have found the Chick tracks to be extremely hurtful, mostly because they are so insidious, and small, and unexpected. I was mailed one once when I was 14 years old by a “friend”/pen pal who — turned out — wanted to “save me” from Catholicism to become Baptist. I tear open the envelope and out drops this little comic book thing, which is searingly insulting to an earnest 14-year-old boy. But the fact that you can find them in your locker (slid through the slits) or on the floor of a college lecture hall, or just about anywhere, makes them like little spiritual hand grenades. I guess we all know it, but the man has an awful lot of evil to answer for, especially for violating the “speak the truth in Love” part of scripture, for even if he has believed he’s speaking the truth, he certainly hasn’t been doing it in love.

Kathleen April 14, 2007 at 8:39 pm

I thought the Chick tracts were pathetic and bizaare when I was an Episcopalian, and I think they’re equally idiotic as a Catholic. Funny, I may have been a heretic when I was an Episcopalian, but at least I had the good sense (or perhaps the grace) to identify with Catholicism rather than Chick’s rabid and reprehensible fundamentalism.

Wagner Moura April 16, 2007 at 10:57 pm

Hi there Jimmy! You don´t even know, but it´s a plesure see you again after some years… In the past, when I was sixteen I visited a site of you (I forgot what site, but I´ve remember some pics about your medieval wedding!) to improving my catholics apologetics knowledge… But, about Chick: what an interesting photo! :D I remembered a comic about the “wafer jesus” that let me in a long confuse days… In the past! So… I just want to say THANK YOU for you evangelistic effort to get catholics – like me!! – stronger in thei faith. Man, you must know that here, at Brazil, you have someone praying for your life and your work to save souls. God bless you!

Gary Dale Cearley April 17, 2007 at 3:27 am

Jack Chick looks very healthy here. I guess there is still time for him to repent and change his ways! Sadly, Alberto Rivera cannot say the same.

Tom May 13, 2007 at 10:39 am

Hi, Jimmy.
I wanted to let you know I read Catholic Answers page on the Chick tracts. Even though the ones he does that preach salvation through Christ don’t bother me, it’s pretty obvious this man has a wild spur up his nose towards the Catholic Church. I’m glad I read the page because it relieved me somewhat after having looked at those anti-Catholic tracts. Why does he want to stir up hostility with Protestants and unbelievers towards the Catholic Church? Last year, I e-mailed his website explaining that the Catholic Church has a prayer to Jesus for forgiveness of our sins (Oh, my Jesus, forgive us our sins, etc.) and never got a reply. Even though there are Evangelical/Orthodox Catholics in the Church, Mr. Chick won’t even give them lip service. And here’s something that surprised me. I read an updated version of his tract “Humbug,” and he removed all references to Christmas (I thought that was only garbage the ACLU did)! In spite of this sort of bashing here, we still need to pray for him instead of condemning him.

Brian May 15, 2007 at 8:24 am

Great work Jimmy!
My in-laws are protestants who swallow Chick’s conspiracies hook, line, sinker and pole! I used to be a nominal/fallen away Catholic who married a protestant. After reading Chick tracts and many Catholic apologists like Jimmy I find myself going to mass and pursuing a return to the Church!
Someone should follow Tim Staples lead and write a book called “How Jack Chick made me a Catholic”.
The funny thing about those tracts is how Chick writes a wild conspiracy theory and in many cases (such as in the tract “Why is Mary Crying?”) Chick’s only sources are writings put out by his own publishing company.
I also love how Chick says if you want to know the truth about Catholic doctrine you need to buy other books from Chick publications (and give him your money!)rather than reading official (and often free) Catholic Church sources.

Sleestak June 5, 2007 at 10:19 pm

Links are broken.

Eric Reynolds June 5, 2007 at 11:22 pm

Folks, I have studied Chick for years and just dug through my files. I have three photos of Chick: a high school yearbook photo (undated, obtained from a fellow, anonymous Chick collector), a 1948 photo that LA Magazine ran in its May 2003 issue in a feature by Robert Ito, as well as a purported 1978 pic from some kind of convention, also obtained from a collector who wishes to remain anonymous. Looking at all of them and this one, I’m actually quite certain that this picture is Chick (I wasn’t at all when I first looked saw it — his exuberance seemed completely out of character). The photo is even consistent with this amateur comic from the 1980s:
http://members.aol.com/chickclub/richcomic1.jpg
http://members.aol.com/chickclub/richcomic2.jpg

A Follower July 14, 2007 at 7:08 pm

It isn’t ‘hostile’ or ‘mean’ to warn people that praying to Mary is unbiblical or that confessing sins to a priest isn’t Biblical or that the Pope is a sinner like everyone else or that most of the tenets of the Catholic dogma DO NOT align with the Bible. If Jack Chick is trying to warn people that their souls are in danger and that they need to trust in Jesus alone–instead of following a false manmade dogma–I’d say that Chick is demonstrating great love for others. But then again, most people don’t really want the truth and so will perish. “The path to salvation is narrow and few find it but the road to destruction is broad and most travel on it,” Jesus Christ.

bill912 July 14, 2007 at 7:35 pm

Well, you sure don’t want the truth, or you would find out what the Catholic Church *actually* teaches, instead of swallowing Chick’s bilge without checking to find out if he knows what he’s talking about.
BTW, Sola Scriptura DOESN’T align with the Bible.

Esquire July 14, 2007 at 7:54 pm

Let me see, Jack Chick — who must rely on falsehoods, deceptions and half-truths about what the Catholic Church teaches to get his point across — says that my soul is in danger if I follow the examples of Mary, St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Francis of Assisi, St. John of the Cross.
Jack Chick says that my soul is in danger if I accept and take to heart the words of Christ, who instructed us to remember him in the Eucharist, to Baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and who gave his first priests the power, and the duty, to forgive sins in his name.
Should I rely on Jack Chick and his man-made dogma?
Or should I rely on the one Christ told me to rely on, the one that holds the office of the keys given to St. Peter?
Should I rely on Jack Chick and his lies, deceptions and distortions, or should I rely on the Church which is the pillar and foundation of truth?
I’ll take my chances with the Vicar of Christ, thank you.

Jarnor23 July 14, 2007 at 8:06 pm

“Dark Dungeons” was enough to tell me that Jack didn’t know what the hell he was talking about in one occasion, which made it easy enough for me to see what kind of lies people tell about the Catholic Church in such tracts too.
Which reminds me, off hand, that I really wish that one priest who still talks on EWTN occasionally about the evils of Dungeons & Dragons would have the research experience of watching a half dozen nerds like myself eating Cheetos and Mountain Dew in someone’s basement. The scariest thing we do is say things like “I cast magic missile at the orc doing… (rolls dice) 7 hit points of damage! Woot woot!”

Gregory July 21, 2007 at 7:45 am

Thanks Jimmy
I happen to be a convert to the Catholic faith, I was a Baptist before I became a Catholic, i remember seeing Jack Chick Tracts over ten years ago when I was in college, i happenend to laugh at his anti-catholic tracts, i happened to read a book by Karl Keating called Catholicism and Fundamentalism after I saw Chick’s Death Cookie tract. I was converted to Catholicism after reading Keating’s book,
Chick does look a bit goofy in that picture above,

Jonathan October 30, 2007 at 3:38 am

As an atheist, I’m a (cynical) non-believer but not one to knock the views of others – providing that they are focussing on the positive of any religion, which can only benefit society at large.
Jack Chick’s writings strike me (as a cynical Brit) as deeply disturbing as many other evangelical religions, and positively dangerous. Is he deliberately trying to provoke a response, or just cause a civil war within Christendom?
Whilst I respect the ability of free speech to question life and religion, surely this guy is going too far and should be slapped back down as a dangerous fruitcake?
Kind regards

Anonymous November 13, 2007 at 8:31 am

You all should look to the heavens, not for god, but ask yourself what are those trail of chemicals, being left by those jets,go and find out about contrails and chemtrails then give thanks to the catholic church. BLIND FAITH!

bill912 November 13, 2007 at 8:34 am

“Now who can argue with that?”
(Or, for that matter, understand it?)

Anonymous December 1, 2007 at 5:12 pm

e-sword.net

Chuck December 7, 2007 at 3:19 am

There is no reason to assume Chick “hates Catholics” on the things I’ve seen he’s done. It is pretty safe to say he hates “Catholicism” because he’s worried about the eternal destination of souls and feels “Catholicism” leads folks astray by teaching a lot of things that are unbiblical.
What I think his aim is, (or at least in my opinion should be) is to cause people to question their faith in the vein of “what does the Bible say about what my religion teaches”. If your religion, no matter what denomination, teaches biblical truth and the Bible as the ultimate authority for revelation of God’s character and plan for salvation then your examination of it’s tenets will do for you one of two things: Strengthen your resolve and “KNOW” what you believe by reinforcement of your beliefs through verification with God’s Word or reveal areas where your religion differs or goes against the Bible’s teaching, causing you to, hopefully, begin to search for the truth.
People can worship who they want how they want, but I hope nobody would do it, ignorantly, or from being misled.

bill912 December 7, 2007 at 3:49 am

“Ignorantly” is an appropriate word to use when discussing Chick. It is NOT “pretty safe to say that he hates ‘Catholicism’.” Chick doesn’t know a darned thing about what the Catholic Church teaches. He has his own beliefs of what the Catholic Church teaches, which bear little or no resemblance to reality. He sets up a strawman church, calls it “The Roman Catholic Church”, imputes certain teachings to it, then attacks those “teachings”. Chick’s ignorance is culpable because the teachings of the Catholic Church are not secret, not hidden. One can read the Catechism or investigate websites such as catholic.com and ewtn.com and find out what the Church teaches. So, Chick does not hate “Catholicism”; he may hate the strawman church that exists in his mind, but what he hates is a phantom.

Chuck December 7, 2007 at 3:59 am

I’m curious as to why you didn’t just refer me to the Bible to find out what the “Catholic Church” teaches. What is so signifigant about the “Catechism” that it is referenced first? Is it a statement of faith based on the Bible, or what? Please forgive my ignorance… and why is calling the “Catholic Church” the “Roman Catholic Church” a bad thing? Is there an implication there?

bill912 December 7, 2007 at 4:14 am

The Bible doesn’t say that the Bible is the sole rule of Faith. Jesus established a Church to which He gave His Authority. Members of that Church wrote the books of the Bible, and, over a period of about three and a half centuries, the Pope and bishops of that Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit(as Jesus promised in Matthew 16) determined which books belong in the Bible and which don’t (see “Where We Got The Bible”, by Henry G. Graham).
The Roman Catholic Church is one of 22 churches which make up the Catholic Church. The other churches are Eastern Catholic churches which either did not reject the authority of the pope in 1054, or later returned to union with the pope.

bill912 December 7, 2007 at 4:22 am

One needs an authority to interpret the Bible: “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever cane by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” (2 Peter 1:20-21). Who has that authority? “…the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15).

Anonymous December 7, 2007 at 5:07 am

So if I’m understanding what you’re implying, the “Catholic Church” is the “only” authority for interpretation of the Bible?
The first verse you quoted seems to be saying that you can’t interpret the Bible to say what you want it to say, It says what it says what it says…but you’re only able to understand it if your moved by the Holy Spirit. Is that correct?
And the second one, just so I can see if I’m understanding it correctly, I thought the “church of the living God” was the people who sincerely professed faith in salvation through Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. If I am correct then doesn’t that mean anyone who is sincere about their profession of faith in Christ qualifies as part of the “church of the living God”?
And IF that is the case, then why can’t “laymen” have the ability to properly interpret scripture?

Chuck December 7, 2007 at 5:08 am

BTW the above post is mine (Chuck) I just forgot to add my name… sorry…

Chuck December 7, 2007 at 5:16 am

And if what you say is true, and I am understanding your explanations correctly, you must be a priest of the Catholic faith and I am wrong in my thinking as posted above.
And if you aren’t a Catholic priest, then I don’t understand how you can be sure my understanding is incorrect and what you’ve said to be true. Or maybe my logic is off, who knows… but I appreciate you taking this time with me either way….

Anonymous December 7, 2007 at 5:22 am

I tried posting this a second ago but it didn’t come up for some reason…
I apologize if the assumptions I make seem accusatory. It’s not my intention. I’m just trying to understand this stuff using my own flawed ways…

bill912 December 7, 2007 at 5:58 am

Jesus gave His Authority first to Peter, then to the other Apostles in unity with Peter. “Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” He said this first to Peter, as recorded in Matthew 16, using the second person singular; then to all the Apostles as recorded later in Matthew’s gospel, using the second person plural.
Jesus told the Apostles to teach. “He who hears you hears Me.” The pope and bishops, the successors of the Apostles, retain that commission and pass on the teachings laid down by our Lord and His Apostles.

bill912 December 7, 2007 at 6:02 am

My above post wasn’t nearly adequate. Maybe somebody else can pick me up.

Chuck December 7, 2007 at 6:10 am

To be honest your post doesn’t really seem to answer my questions, so if someone else wouldn’t mind chiming end I would greatly appreciate it…

jrg December 7, 2007 at 6:11 am

“If I am correct then doesn’t that mean anyone who is sincere about their profession of faith in Christ qualifies as part of the “church of the living God”?”
There’s only one Church Jesus established, so those who are sincere about their profession of faith in Christ are Catholic – but our baptized, “Bible only” brothers and sisters either don’t realize this, or rejecte it outright and willingly choose to remain separated.

Anonymous December 7, 2007 at 6:21 am

After I reread some your first post, I have more questions… actually I just need further clarification…
You said the Bible doesn’t say it’s the sole rule of faith and I’m not gonna argue that, but I’m sure I read 2 Timothy 3:16 correctly and would assume it not to be that hard to interpret ( I know there is a good chance I’m wrong about that, but anyway) it’s meaning when it says (I paraphrase) “all scripture is good for teaching, rebuke, correcting and training in righteousness” So would I be correct in assuming whatever I’m taught by any religion I should be able to verify in principle, if not in word, through the Bible?
You also mentioned the people of the Church that Jesus established wrote the books of the Bible. Did you mean the New Testament? Because I was under the impression the Old Testament was written several hundred years before Christ was born and “prophesied” of his birth,life, death, and resurrection. Is that right, or am I misinformed?
I know I’m asking a LOT of questions… but if I’m basing my “eternity” on someone’s teachings, I want to be sure I’m understanding them correctly and they are true and correct (to the best of my understanding) before I follow any of them…

Chuck December 7, 2007 at 6:30 am

jrg,
what do you mean by “bible only brothers and sisters”. I don’t understand the implication. I assume you mean there’s a difference between “them” and Catholics…

bill912 December 7, 2007 at 6:39 am

Yes, I meant the New Testament(I need more coffee to shake my brain awake!!!!)
All scripture is indeed good for teaching, especially as it is divinely inspired. But that verse doesn’t say that ONLY the Bible is good or sufficient for teaching. Also, the only scriptures that Paul could have been referring to are the Old Testament, as the canon of the New Testament had not yet been established, nor even completely written at that time. While the Old Testament is good for teaching, we wouldn’t want to base all our beliefs on the Old Testament (or we’d be wishing one another “Happy Hannukah” this week).

Chuck December 7, 2007 at 6:41 am

JRG (or anyone else who cares to answer),
As a follow up to the “bible only” question above… those who don’t realize or willingly reject it and choose to be seperated… is there a consequence of the seperation? If so, then what?
-Chuck

Anonymous December 7, 2007 at 6:43 am

Bill,
thanks for the clarification… I’m a night shift guy (at a catholic hospital, no less) so I try not to jump to conclusions…

jrg December 7, 2007 at 6:50 am

Chuck – the consequence of the separation is disunion within the Body of Christ. Our Lord addresses this in John 17.
Christians provide a much stronger witness in the world when we are united; Satan does everything he can to perpetuate division.
And, it is my understanding that “Bible only” Christians do not accept the authority granted to Peter and his successors which is a fundamental difference in our understanding of our Blessed Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Anonymous December 7, 2007 at 6:51 am

Umm… I just realized this probably isn’t where I’m supposed to be asking all these questions… Anybody care to redirect me to another interactive forum/blog?! Thanks everyone who posted responses to my posts.
-Chuck

Anonymous December 7, 2007 at 6:56 am

JRG,
One last question (post)if you please… tell me about this “authority granted to Peter and his successors”. What is it. Why is it important. Why did he (Christ) give it to him (Peter alone and his successors). And where do I find out more about it.(Bible reference, too if there is one, please)
Thanks a lot for all your information. I’m about to go home and crash. I thank you all for your time.
-Chuck

jrg December 7, 2007 at 7:24 am

Chuck,
Jesus will answer why He granted this authority to Peter better than I could – so ask Him.
Matthew 16:18-19 is where Peter gets his authority – an authority to bind and loose. Jesus’ promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church holds true – after 2,000 years, She is still here and continues to grow every year. Pope Benedict XVI is Peter’s current successor.
You might want to check out catholic.com to learn more. Also, David Currie’s book, Born Fundamentalst, Born Again Catholic was instrumental in my reversion.
“http://www.amazon.com/Born-Fundamentalist-Again-Catholic/dp/089870569X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197040071&sr=8-1

James Zlata' Husa December 7, 2007 at 6:02 pm

Hello, I’m a convert to the Catholic Church,praise GOD. I’ve heard about Mr. Chick & his stuff for years. Most of his tracts are inspiring, but his anti-Catholic tracts are terribly evil(though at my age,so funny,I can’t get offended,they’re so comical) I have a genuine love for Mr. Chick,and have and will continue to pray for him so he’s not eternally lost for being a false witness. What makes me the most angry,sad,and outraged are the Church’s present embracing of the sick theory of Evolution,it’s belief that Islam and other religions are good just like Xstianity,& Catholics do nothing to spread the gospel of Xst,they’re even ignorant of their faith. Instead of not speaking to me or blowing me off let everybody else, anybody with a good heart out there please e-mail me with your comments at: Censotti1941@peoplepc.com. I also create my own tracts,which I’ll be happy to mail to an interested party.

James Zlata' Husa December 7, 2007 at 6:19 pm

Hello, I’m a convert to the Catholic Church,praise GOD. I’ve heard about Mr. Chick & his stuff for years. Most of his tracts are inspiring, but his anti-Catholic tracts are terribly evil(though at my age,so funny,I can’t get offended,they’re so comical) I have a genuine love for Mr. Chick,and have and will continue to pray for him so he’s not eternally lost for being a false witness. What makes me the most angry,sad,and outraged are the Church’s present embracing of the sick theory of Evolution,it’s belief that Islam and other religions are good just like Xstianity,& Catholics do nothing to spread the gospel of Xst,they’re even ignorant of their faith. Instead of not speaking to me or blowing me off like everybody else, e-mail me back with your comments at: Censotti1941@peoplepc.com I’m sorry for hogging the space on this webiste, but I had no Catholic background. Catholics believe only Catholics have Jesus in the Eucharist. But nobody ever told me. Therefore,I was kept from Jesus Xst all these years. How selfish!!!!!!! Fellow Catholics,explain yourselves!!!!!!! EVIL!

Desert Hawk December 9, 2007 at 7:30 pm

The Catholic Church was founded by Roman Emperor Constantine. Peter was not the first Pope. The Bible clearly says that Peter was married.

Dan Hunter December 9, 2007 at 8:55 pm

Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity founded the Catholic Church.
“That all may be one as I and the Father are One”.
Christ gave St. Peter the keys to the kingdom and made him the first Supreme Pontiff, or “Bridge Builder”.
Yes, Simon was married, but he gave up wife and family for an eternally higher calling.
God bless you.
Ut Prosim

bill912 December 10, 2007 at 4:40 am

Desert Hawk:
First sentence: Evidence?
Second sentence: Evidence?
Third sentence: So what?

jrg December 10, 2007 at 5:21 am

Bill912 – I was going to ask the same questions. You beat me to it. :-)

Esau December 10, 2007 at 9:21 am

Desert Hawk:
Do you learn all your history from Anti-Catholic tracts?
Perhaps people would take you more seriously if you actually learned about Church history rather than flaunt your ignorance with your ludicrous statements!

Esau December 10, 2007 at 9:25 am

Desert Fart:
Do you learn all your history from absurd Anti-Catholic tracts?
Perhaps you should first learn genuine Church History before flaunting your ignorance by making such ludicrous statements!

Jarnor23 December 10, 2007 at 9:34 am

You know Dan, to most people, that sounds an awful lot like Peter being a jerk who abandoned his family and wife to the streets. We obviously know that he was married given that his mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible, and that his primary calling was to specifically lead Christ’s church after His ascension. However, from the mother-in-law story, we know he didn’t say “hey, I’ll never see you guys again, good luck”.
Your words can give the wrong impression there, even though, as for all Christians, Christ must come first in his life, even to the point of giving it away. Best to be careful in how we phrase things, especially where our separated brethren are clearly about.

Esau December 10, 2007 at 9:40 am

Jarnor23,
I hardly agree with Dan in many things — even in this case; however, as regards the Gospel, remember what Jesus said in both Luke and Matthew:
Luke 9: 59-62
59 But he said to another: Follow me. And he said: Lord, suffer me first to go and to bury my father.
60 And Jesus said to him: Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
61 And another said: I will follow thee, Lord; but let me first take my leave of them that are at my house.
62 Jesus said to him: No man putting his hand to the plough and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God.

Jarnor23 December 10, 2007 at 10:48 am

Hey, I got a good one back for ya, “Honor thy father and thy mother.” Jesus DID say to keep those.
The most pious priests I’ve ever met mention that the reason Jesus said that to the man is that He knew it was an excuse, the point is not to leave rotting carcasses in the street, but rather to put first things first and not make excuses.
However, if you really want to debate that Jesus meant for dead bodies to be strewn about willy nilly, please, by all means.

Jarnor23 December 10, 2007 at 10:50 am

Oh, by the way, do you work? No man putting his hand to the plough and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God.
This is why the Magesterium can help us with unclear verses instead of us being little Popes of our own. I left Lutheranism because I no longer believed in that garbage.

Esau December 10, 2007 at 11:07 am

Hey, I got a good one back for ya, “Honor thy father and thy mother.” Jesus DID say to keep those.
Read your bible, Jarnor23:
Lk 14:26:
26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (DRV)

Esau December 10, 2007 at 11:13 am

…rather to put first things first and not make excuses.
For the record, I agree with this though.

Jarnor23 December 10, 2007 at 11:24 am

I’ve read it, but I have yet to see where it says “Thou should treat your wife and kids like dirt, also thy father and thy mother, to follow me.” You’re translating “hate” in the way atheists often do, to show how much you must detest them (and, to an atheist, why God is bad). Did Christ mean this? Not as I’ve heard it said by priests. They say that hate is said to show that compared to your love of God even the love you show your family is as hate. And I DON’T live in a happy hippyland diocese or parish, thank you.

Jarnor23 December 10, 2007 at 11:26 am

Please note, not calling you an atheist, but showing how that line of thought on “hate” is often misunderstood, sometimes to great detriment for the soul.

Esau December 10, 2007 at 11:40 am

I think this is the few instances the NAB footnotes actually got it correct:
7 [26] Hating his father . . . : cf the similar saying in Matthew 10:37. The disciple’s family must take second place to the absolute dedication involved in following Jesus (see also Luke 9:59-62).

JoAnna December 10, 2007 at 11:59 am

7 [26] Hating his father . . . : cf the similar saying in Matthew 10:37. The disciple’s family must take second place to the absolute dedication involved in following Jesus (see also Luke 9:59-62).

Jarnor and I have experienced this firsthand — last month we were put into a situation (concerning an invalid marriage) where we had to choose to either follow Christ’s teachings or keep peace within the family. We chose the former instead of the latter and it’s been a rough road, but ultimately worth it.

Dan Hunter December 10, 2007 at 1:08 pm

Jarnor 23,
I merely stated a fact about Simon Peter leaving his wife to follow Christ.
I did not not state it in an inflamatory fashion.
There was no ad hominem attacks involved.
He chose to give away everything to follow the eternally higher call and that wasn’t something He was Someone, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.
You have no ground to stand on with your ill-placed admonishment.
I spoke nothing untrue.
I spoke nothing in a mean spirit.
Esau,
What basic fundamental truths of Catholic Dogma do you disagree with me on?
Ut Prosim.

erick December 10, 2007 at 1:30 pm

“I merely stated a fact about Simon Peter leaving his wife to follow Christ.”
Where is this “fact” found?.

Dan Hunter December 10, 2007 at 1:49 pm

erick,
Sacred Scripture.
Ut Prosim

erick December 10, 2007 at 2:00 pm

Where..?

Dan Hunter December 10, 2007 at 3:08 pm

eick,
I was wrong.
St Peter was never married.
Ut Prosim

Esquire December 10, 2007 at 3:14 pm

St Peter was never married.
Try Matthew 8:14. The fact that St. Peter had a mother-in-law tells us that he was married, but it says nothing about St. Peter’s wife (such as whether she was even still living at the time).

erick December 10, 2007 at 3:16 pm

Jalnor 23
“…We obviously know that he was married given that his mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible,”.
Dan Hunter
“eick,
I was wrong.
St Peter was never married.”
We were doing soooo good!.

Jarnor23 December 10, 2007 at 3:35 pm

Let’s just call it a gentle correction, Dan.

Mary December 10, 2007 at 4:27 pm

Luke 18 is even more relevant to the question.
Then Peter said, “We have given up our possessions and followed you.”
He said to them, “Amen, I say to you, there is no one who has given up house or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God

Mary December 10, 2007 at 4:28 pm

who will not receive (back) an overabundant return in this present age and eternal life in the age to come.”
(oops)

Esau December 10, 2007 at 4:31 pm

See Jarnor!
Did you read what Mary quoted from Scripture?
;^P

Dan Hunter December 10, 2007 at 8:31 pm

What was Simon Peters wifes name?

JamesR December 14, 2007 at 12:58 am

Hi Everyone, Interesting photo of Jack Chick. I have always been curious as to what he looks like. I grew up with Chick Comics in the late 80′s, and also read the Alberto series and also the two books by “Rebecca Brown”. It is an established fact that Rebecca Brown is a fraud and it also appears likely that Alberto was also a fraud. Whlist I respect Jack Chick’s efforts in evangilism, I feel he should admit he has made mistakes in the past and publish this on his website. Otherwise he is letting the dangerous teaching of Rebecca Brown go on (www.harvestwarriors.com).

Luke December 24, 2007 at 8:48 pm

Jack Chick maybe seen as extremist by catholics, well practising catholics for that manner, but please try and prove or provide some evidence that he is wrong when exposing the errors of the church when he is using biblical text to back his claims. One of my best mates is a catholic, however he like most practising catholics call upon other forms of literature to try and prove that the catholic faith is the only way to heaven.
Chick like myself im sure relies on %100 biblical text as it is the “textus receptus” original text to understand the true nature of salvation and to build a strong and direct one on one relationship with Jesus.

bill912 December 24, 2007 at 8:56 pm

Try reading the above posts.
Here, I’ll go real slow:
Chick….does….not….know….what….the….Catholic….Church….teaches.
He….has….in….his….mind….a….straw….man….church….that….HE….calls….”The….Roman….Catholic….Church….and….to….which….HE….imputes….certain….teachings.
Any….resemblance….between….Chick’s….straw….man….church….and….the….Catholic….Church….is….purely….coincidental.
Got it?

bill912 December 24, 2007 at 8:59 pm

Don’t know what happened. Let’s try again.
What’s missing is “and to which HE imputes certain teachings”

Fred December 25, 2007 at 5:55 am

I read a lot chick publications at high school. I enjoyed every bit of it as it communicates the Bible in a simple form for my understanding.
I see nothing wrong with this great work of evangelism.

bill912 January 19, 2008 at 11:22 am

So you see nothing wrong with anti-Catholic bigotry and lying about what Catholics believe. Your point?

SmailAXIS January 31, 2008 at 8:06 pm

Poor Mr Chick. Nobody likes him.
Does he care? I doubt it.
Gays, catholics, liberals and scientists rant a lot about him, truth or not. I wouldn’t mind him or those who follow him. If you care, then that’s your buisness. No matter what everyone is ranting about, he still breathes, he still draw. He still has “faith”, he still has ideas, evil or not. I mean, look at the dude! He looks happy and satisfied! Does he give a damn about us? NOT AT ALL.
So just ignore him and just educate your people to counter him, if you are just complaining and yelling like little girls and persuade people then you’re just like him.

johannim May 3, 2008 at 11:17 am

JACK CHICK COMES FROM THE SAME BAPTIST BIGOTRY I CAME FROM, (I AM A TRADITIONALIST/CONVERT TO THE CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN FAITH). MINDSETS LIKE CHICKY BABY ARE NOT HARD TO FIGURE OUT, THE DUDES A HATEMONGER OF THE WORST SELF-RIGHTIOUS KIND NOT UNCOMMON AMOUNG A WHOLE “HELL” OF A LOT OF BAPTISTS AND EVANGELICAL “CHRISTIANS’. IF ONLY THERE REALLY WAS AN OPUS DEI OR JESUIT CONSPIRACY THEN MAYBE THEY COULD INJECT CHICK WITH CANCER OF THE ASSHOLE WHICH IN HIS CASE IS BETWEEN HIS NOSE AND HIS CHIN.

Jim W August 29, 2008 at 11:29 am

Congrats on you writing a book on this! I am greatly looking forward to purchasing it. I would love to hand out some booklets counter attacking his faction flyers

ANDROLOMA September 1, 2008 at 2:03 pm

I remember his tracts and cruddy vitriol back in the 70s. I used to go to a church in my early teens that preached out of the same mixed up bible he did. That upbringing has led me into the secular humanism I now believe in today.
But I have one last question for all the Christians out there who may read this in the future: Exactly how many Onward Christian soldiers does it take to turn the other cheek?
Come visit my website and leave comments, so that we might engage in a lively debate. Beware, however, it’s a den of iniquity. Have a great life, all. There’s more to it than invective and ultimatums.

Mechanized September 4, 2008 at 6:43 am

An interesting point that should probably be eluded to relates to the tract “Are Roman Catholics Christian.” Within the tract there is a brief discussion of the Eucharist. The contents claim that this round wafer has its origins in ancient Egypt and represents the sun god Osiris.
However, there is a serious problem with this statement. In ancient Egypt, the sun god was not Osiris but rather “Ra” (many probably also recall in popular culture the reference to Ra in the film “Raiders of the Lost Ark”–”the head piece to the staff of Ra.”) later subsumed into “Horus.”
Osiris, on the other hand, was the god of life, death, and fertility. The so-called Eucharist-style wafers were not made in the shape of a round wafer. In reality, these “wafers” were actually cakes made in the shape of the statue of Osiris.
This information can be easily obtained online, even at wikipedia.
Jack Chick’s faulty information on the above subject was obtained from the book: “The Two Babylons: Or, the Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife.”

James Zlata' Husa November 6, 2008 at 5:40 pm

I certainly like Jack T. Chick!! The content of most of his tracts are great, spreading Christ’s Gospel.
All he needs do is repent of attacking the Eucharist,other Sacraments,& Catholic conspiracy nonsense.
I hope he will stand useful in angering & embarrassing Catholics to the point of them re-dedicating themselves to their faith fully, and repenting of doctrinal compromise.
God uses people that way. See Habbakak

Previous post:

Next post: