Jack Chick and Ellen White /Re: The Oath Is A Forgery

[Stephen Korsman]

It should be apparent to most people that Jack is grinding his
own ax and tends to express his opinions as fact.

Is this a fact...or is this your opinion? Please prove what is not
fact.
http://www.chick.com/default.asp

Could you be a little more specific. The page you link to has
many different subjects.

The page was provided as a courtesy to you, to help answer
my request for you to support your claims that this man was
"grinding his own ax"..and expressing his "opinions as fact."
If you want to acknowledge that your statement was without
factual basis and was merely your own personal opinion,then
I would understand.
But then I would ask why you would present your personal
opinion unsupported by fact as a condemnation of another
for doing the same, which would obviously be illogical and
unreasonable.
Andrew

Sorry, but your reference is only a sales site for his writings.
It does not contain his writings.

All the writings are online at the site.

For example his comic book "Understanding Roman Catholicism;
I Never Knew Catholics Taught That" I don't have a copy,

Here it is online: http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160cont.asp

What is really comical about this is that Jack Chick's book looks a lot

like

the books exposing Ellen G. White's errors. Funny how one person accepts
one book as true and the other as false. (Applicable to both.)

It is ironic, yes. The major difference would be that Chick's stuff either
doesn't quote Catholic documents, or grossly misrepresents them in the few
places it does. It's a propaganda machine that claims all sorts of
nonsense. Christianity Today, and several other Protestants, have written
against his stuff because it's just not honest apologetics.

Books on Ellen White, on the other hand, take her actual words and examine
them.

Andrew, have you actually studied what is written at the link to find out

if

what they quote is true and authoritative?

But surely anything anti-Catholic must be right?

I did that with the books
critical of EGW which is why I am not an Adventist.

It's always good to read both sides of the story. (Which you did.) It's no
use trying to prove a belief incorrect if you don't even know what that
belief is ... which is Andrew's tactic.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

[Joseph Meehan]

Stephen Korsman wrote:
....

It's no use trying to prove a belief incorrect if you don't even know
what that belief is ...
God bless,
Stephen

Worse yet, almost always that "proof" is based on the beliefs of the
person using it as proof. Only they don't see it as an belief, they see it
only as fact.

Religion is about belief. If it were provable then it would not involve
belief. It seems to me that Christ was most interested in belief and not
knowledge.

John: 29. Jesus said to him: You believe because you can see me. Blessed
are those who have not seen and yet believe.

[Stephen Korsman]

Post by Joseph Meehan
....

It's no use trying to prove a belief incorrect if you don't even know
what that belief is ...
God bless,
Stephen

Worse yet, almost always that "proof" is based on the beliefs of the
person using it as proof. Only they don't see it as an belief, they see it
only as fact.

In all cases of "proof" regarding religious issues, there are assumptions
that must come first. The "fact" that there were 12 Apostles chosen by
Jesus is proven by looking at the Gospels ... but the assumption that the
Gospels are accurate must come first. Once that assumption is accepted,
it's pretty hard to deny that there were 12 Apostles.

When I use the term "proof" in the sense I used it in my previous post, I
assume that those involved share a common assumption (that the Bible is
inspired by God) - based on a commonly accepted set of rules, further
logical conclusions are possible.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Post by Joseph Meehan
Religion is about belief. If it were provable then it would not involve
belief. It seems to me that Christ was most interested in belief and not
knowledge.
John: 29. Jesus said to him: You believe because you can see me. Blessed
are those who have not seen and yet believe.
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia duit

[Joseph Meehan]

Post by Stephen Korsman

Post by Joseph Meehan
...
Worse yet, almost always that "proof" is based on the beliefs of
the person using it as proof. Only they don't see it as an belief,
they see it only as fact.

..

Post by Stephen Korsman
When I use the term "proof" in the sense I used it in my previous
post, I assume that ...
God bless,
Stephen

I did not mean to question your statement, I only used it as a
springboard to go a different direction. :-)

[Stephen Korsman]

Post by Joseph Meehan

Post by Stephen Korsman

Post by Joseph Meehan
...
Worse yet, almost always that "proof" is based on the beliefs of
the person using it as proof. Only they don't see it as an belief,
they see it only as fact.

..

Post by Stephen Korsman
When I use the term "proof" in the sense I used it in my previous
post, I assume that ...
God bless,
Stephen

I did not mean to question your statement, I only used it as a
springboard to go a different direction. :-)

I didn't think you did ... I was just explaining further. Discussing issues
with Catholics, Protestants, atheists, and others all require different
basic assumptions, depending on what everyone has in common.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

[Malcolm]

Post by Stephen Korsman

Post by Joseph Meehan
Worse yet, almost always that "proof" is based on the beliefs of the
person using it as proof. Only they don't see it as an belief, they see
it only as fact.

In all cases of "proof" regarding religious issues, there are assumptions
that must come first. The "fact" that there were 12 Apostles chosen by
Jesus is proven by looking at the Gospels ... but the assumption that the
Gospels are accurate must come first. Once that assumption is accepted,
it's pretty hard to deny that there were 12 Apostles.
When I use the term "proof" in the sense I used it in my previous post, I
assume that those involved share a common assumption (that the Bible is
inspired by God) - based on a commonly accepted set of rules, further
logical conclusions are possible.

12 was the number of the tribes of Israel. So you might want to argue that
Jesus had a fluctuating ragbag of disciples, and that tradition later made
their numbers sum to twelve.You can believe this and remain a Christian.

However the fact that all extant sources claim the number was twelve is
beyond sane dispute.

[Stephen Korsman]

Post by Malcolm

Post by Stephen Korsman

Post by Joseph Meehan
Worse yet, almost always that "proof" is based on the beliefs of the
person using it as proof. Only they don't see it as an belief, they see
it only as fact.

In all cases of "proof" regarding religious issues, there are assumptions
that must come first. The "fact" that there were 12 Apostles chosen by
Jesus is proven by looking at the Gospels ... but the assumption that the
Gospels are accurate must come first. Once that assumption is accepted,
it's pretty hard to deny that there were 12 Apostles.
When I use the term "proof" in the sense I used it in my previous post, I
assume that those involved share a common assumption (that the Bible is
inspired by God) - based on a commonly accepted set of rules, further
logical conclusions are possible.

12 was the number of the tribes of Israel. So you might want to argue that
Jesus had a fluctuating ragbag of disciples, and that tradition later made
their numbers sum to twelve.You can believe this and remain a Christian.
However the fact that all extant sources claim the number was twelve is
beyond sane dispute.

True ... but the underlying assumption there is that all the extant sources
are accurately reporting the situation. That they report it that way,
however, is not an assumption, it's a fact (assuming the sources we get the
information from are accurately reporting the situation.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za