God’s Cartoonist: The Insane But Popular Theology of Jack Chick

by Luke Muehlhauser on December 10, 2009 in Christian Theology,Video

Previous post:

Next post:

{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }

Haukur December 10, 2009 at 2:41 am

I can’t see the video for whatever reason but Chick’s theology looks like good old Nicene Christianity to me.

  (Quote)

atimetorend December 10, 2009 at 6:41 am

That looks really interesting, I only watched a few minutes so far. A future post on Jack Chick theology would be very interesting too. And are there distinctions between Nicene Christianity, which can include more mainstream beliefs and the fundamentalism expressed by Chick’s work.

I think because of the popularity and design of his tracts less fundamentalist evangelicals can be rather more accepting of his message than they would otherwise. Having children, I find them insidious. Nothing like having the carrot of comics in order to smack kids over the head with the stick of fear.

  (Quote)

Bill Maher December 10, 2009 at 8:22 am

Thank you for this Luke. You are my homeboy.

  (Quote)

AntiChris Hitchens December 10, 2009 at 9:28 am

Oh come now, friend. We both know this Chick guy represents perhaps a fraction of a grain of salt in the silo of Christianity throughout its twenty centuries of existence. Surely you are not suggesting Christianity is goofy based on the views of a single comic who may or may not even be practicing Christianity as it is taught by the Roman Catholic Church?

This raises an interesting question. Why is it that you actively seek out the most morose examples of Christianity you can find and then shite and giggle away at them as though the whole of the religion is an absurdity only a fool would want to be a part of?

I observe that on one hand you claim to be merely asking innocent questions; but on the other, it appears as though you are actively working very hard to build a case against God. If I do say so, you almost appear to be a satellite recruiting office of sorts for atheism. There is no other way to explain your morbid fascination with all the extremist sects of Christianity that clearly don’t paint it in a desirable light.

I wonder are you sponsoring this virtual recruiting office to convince your few readers this God character is unworthy of respect, or are you doing it to convince yourself?

The Shakespearean “doth protest too much” comes to mind.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, if indeed you are trying to convince your readers of God’s unworthiness, may I ask why? After all, by the looks of the comments on your articles, the vast majority of your readers seem to agree with your every word without protest. Aside from the fact that mere validation from one’s friends does not a wise man make, I wonder why on earth you would be wasting time trying to sell tobacco to tobacco farmers? It makes no sense.

Suffice it to say my dear friend Luke, any donkey can do what you are doing. Your incessant negative focus on the “worst of Christianity”, would be like heckling every single turnover, botched shot attempt, missed free throw, and blunder of the 2009 Los Angeles Lakers….. without ever mentioning the fact that they are in fact league champions. That aptly sums up the absurdity of your clearly prejudiced approach to “exposing” Christianity. You’re either sincerely ignorant, or deliberately deceptive.. and quite frankly I am not sure which is worse.

But then in your defense, what place does objectivity have in the mind of a benevolent secular humanist (aka sympathetic atheist) like yourself? It doesn’t. I surmise you, like most atheists, were not seeking truth when you “deconverted” from Christianity; I submit you were seeking “comfort.” What could be more comfortable than a world in which one has no moral boundaries and is “free” to view the world as he wishes and partake in any behavior he deems interesting or necessary?

Thanks for keeping us all on our toes, Luke.

  (Quote)

Fortuna December 10, 2009 at 11:50 am

Anti;

Why is it that you actively seek out the most morose examples of Christianity you can find and then shite and giggle away at them as though the whole of the religion is an absurdity only a fool would want to be a part of?

Luke can answer for himself, but perhaps the title of the post will give you a clue; because this shit is popular.

I wonder are you sponsoring this virtual recruiting office to convince your few readers this God character is unworthy of respect, or are you doing it to convince yourself?

The Shakespearean “doth protest too much” comes to mind.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, if indeed you are trying to convince your readers of God’s unworthiness, may I ask why? After all, by the looks of the comments on your articles, the vast majority of your readers seem to agree with your every word without protest. Aside from the fact that mere validation from one’s friends does not a wise man make, I wonder why on earth you would be wasting time trying to sell tobacco to tobacco farmers? It makes no sense.

Same reason one does much of anything, in my humble opinion; because it’s interesting.

Suffice it to say my dear friend Luke, any donkey can do what you are doing. Your incessant negative focus on the “worst of Christianity”, would be like heckling every single turnover, botched shot attempt, missed free throw, and blunder of the 2009 Los Angeles Lakers….. without ever mentioning the fact that they are in fact league champions. That aptly sums up the absurdity of your clearly prejudiced approach to “exposing” Christianity. You’re either sincerely ignorant, or deliberately deceptive.. and quite frankly I am not sure which is worse.

Is this the only post you’ve read?

But then in your defense, what place does objectivity have in the mind of a benevolent secular humanist (aka sympathetic atheist) like yourself? It doesn’t.

Is that your obective assessment?

I surmise you, like most atheists, were not seeking truth when you “deconverted” from Christianity; I submit you were seeking “comfort.” What could be more comfortable than a world in which one has no moral boundaries and is “free” to view the world as he wishes and partake in any behavior he deems interesting or necessary?

Rather than “surmise”, you could just go read his de-conversion story. Sheesh.

  (Quote)

lukeprog December 10, 2009 at 11:53 am

AntiChris Hitchens,

This post talks about a form of Christianity that tens of millions of people embrace. That is way more people than those who embrace some kind of sophisticated theology like that held by, say, Peter van Inwagen.

  (Quote)

Bill Maher December 10, 2009 at 2:51 pm

AntiChris, Jack has sold over 750 million (upwards 1 billion) tracts worldwide in over 100 languages. I would hardly call that a small group.

  (Quote)

Jake de Backer December 10, 2009 at 3:42 pm

Fellow Apostates,

Has this not been the battle cry of every fucking theist on this site at one point in time or another?

“Boo hoo, that’s not my Christianity you’re mocking. I don’t know who is stupid enough to believe it, because I certainly don’t. Boo hoo, why do you pick on these loser sects and treat them as though they are paradigmatic of all of us. Boo boo boo boo hoooooooooo.”

Considering the incalculable level of disagreement between you theist’s and in a narrower light, Christians in particular, there is no possible way any one post on any one sect of Christianity is going to encompass the maniacal beliefs of all of you. Due to the schismatic nature of your beliefs, (an argument against it’s veracity altogether, some have suggested) we, the competition, are bound to leave out certain creeds or sectarian views while critiquing certain perspectives different from your own.

I must say though, among the more consistent and most scripturally sound positions, is those of the Christian Reconstructionist’s breed. Believing that ALL contemporary, “man-made” laws ought to be summarily dismissed and the Old & New Testament laws should be erected in their stead. This is obviously psychotic but at least they don’t deceptively expurgate the morally undesirable elements of scripture and present their own edited versions of scripture as the “real” truth. They make none of the whiny “…but that’s out of context!” rejoinder’s because they believe that God said it exactly as he meant it to be said and that’s it and that’s all. No “interpretations”. No “contextualization”. When it says kill a man for bundling sticks on a sabbath, it literally means kill the mother fucker. Not condemn him, censure him or ostracize him. KILL HIM.

I can not see how Christian’s don’t get that their attempts to “interpret” unpleasant scripture is just an exercise in projection whereby, one engages in verbal and semantic gymnastics to offer what they think “it really means.” That is to say, preponderantly angry, rigid, mean people uphold and maintain the capricious, vengeful morally degenerate acts of Yahweh while the benign, decent and loving individuals try to make Yahweh appear as such. It’s simple projection, through and through. On what basis do they think they, and they alone, have the capacity to act as God’s translator. The arrogance emitted from an individual who says, “For hundreds of years, millions of people who killed or were killed on account of this one verse were, in effect, wrong. And I’m right.”, is indigestible to me.

I have friends across the board who make incompatible claims about, for instance, how one get’s to heaven. Some say, “By deeds of course. God rewards action.” others claim “By believing upon his Son. He knows what’s in your heart and if it’s true, you will join him in eternity”. Others say it’s just a matter of “Living a good, moral life. Help others when you can. Hurt no one.” Each of these is as scripturally unsound as the next. There exist verses in the bible which confute each of these claims and why do they not care? Because all they’ve done is take WHAT THEY THINK SHOULD BE THE GOAL POST’S of one’s conduct to earn eternal paradise and make that representative of God’s. A dishonest combination of speculation and projection.

Fuck proxy IP’s,
J.

  (Quote)

Reginald Selkirk December 13, 2009 at 7:54 am

Atheist cartoon
“We Kree have a mathematical equation that proves the nonexistence of any deities. We learn it when we’re children, about the same time we learn not to soil ourselves with excrement.”

  (Quote)

Donut December 21, 2009 at 6:28 pm

Methinks the AntiChris may be the odious David Robertson or one of his cronies.

  (Quote)

Leave a Comment