Talk:Chick Publications/Archive 1

message: I don't think that chick.com expresses the fundamentalist viewpoint any more strongly than most fundamentalists.  Also, I'm not sure that you could say that it's not primarily a born-again movement, since every strip ends with an exhortation to be born again in Christ.
-Alex Kennedy
----
Well, he does believe that the Roman Catholic Church purposely developed Communism and Nazism: Macho!, by Jack Chick. On the fundamentalist scale, I would put him at more extreme than Jerry Falwell, equal with Texe Marrs, and less so than Neil Horsely. But that's fairly subjective, I guess.
As for the term "born again", many non-fundamentist Christians also use the term, since it comes directly from the Bible. Jack Chick certainly is a proponant of being "born again", but to say that his ministry is representive of born again Christianity is misleading. --Stephen Gilbert
----
OK, well, I concede the point about the born-again / fundamentalist distinction, but being (in my mind) a bigot and a fool does not make someone an extreme fundamentalist; rather, embracing an extremely literal interpretation of the Bible does - and I don't see how Chick's interpretation of the Bible is any more literal than that of any other fundamentalist.
----
Christian fundamentalists may claim to interpret the Bible literally (and often do), but many fundamentalist positions do not come from literal interpretation. For example, the idea of the Rapture is taken from several vague Bible verses, but nowhere is the idea spelled out literally. Also, most fundamentalists are against any consumption of alcohol, while the Bible makes no such prohibitions.
However, I'm willing to concede that Chick is not representive of the most extreme fringes of Christian fundamentalism. Let's leave it at unqualified Christian fundamentalism. --Stephen Gilbert
:: Just a quick clarification.  The idea of the rapture is spelled out quite well at 1st Cor 15:51-57 and by Jesus, himself, as recorded at Matthew 24:37-44.  It is the word rapture (not the idea) that does not appear within the Bible. KeyStroke 05:23, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)
----
What's so "absurd" about Chick's claim that Mormon belief includes a form of polytheism?  AFAIK this is something they openly admit, though they don't tend to use the term "polytheism" themselves.  They do not engage in the worship of several gods, though they acknowledge that the faithful become gods, or god-like beings, after death, with universes of their own to rule and save.  Surely there must be plenty of other absurd Chick beliefs we could reference here instead of Mormon polytheism, which is more or less true in a broad sense, albeit misleadingly presented by this article and by the Chick tract it cites. —Psychonaut 11:11, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: fundamentalist viewpoint

message: I've now removed three or four POV insertions made by 222.152.239.* to related pages. Since another one in much the same vein ("These people have been discredited and are unpopular") just appeared here, I'm guessing this person doesn't understand why those insertions were removed.
One of the most important concepts of Wikipedia is Neutral point of view. One statement of NPOV: "The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree." That means you need to avoid subjective judgements and unsubstantiated assertions; in general, it's better to present evidence than to try making people's minds up for them. As far as possible, stick to facts that are beyond question.
"These people have been discredited." How? By whom? Obviously, many people *don't* believe these guys are discredited; you need to give specifics, and if you don't have specifics you shouldn't be making this claim here. Ideally, you should give enough information that somebody can go out and verify for themselves that what you have said is true.
"These people are unpopular." This is subjective, and depends very much on who you talk to - among some circles, including Chick's, they are very popular indeed. If you can give specifics, do so. As it stands, it does nothing but attempt to make up people's minds for them. Who are these people unpopular with? How has that unpopularity been demonstrated?
If you've got further questions about any of this, I'm happy to discuss it either here or on my talk page. BTW, if you're going to be a regular contributor to Wikipedia, please consider registering an editor account and logging in before making edits. This makes it easier to discuss such issues, and I'd much rather address someone by a name than an IP range. It will also let you track pages of interest to you. --Calair 23:20, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was working on getting the stuff I'd added NPOV'd... I think that the issue of whether it is a parody site or not is just as important as the site itself. In addition, I'm not the guy who's IP you're referring to.  I'm a bit confused. Mo0 05:05, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: My comments about NPOV weren't addressed at you - that was to a previous poster. I reverted your changes, then started writing an explanation, and you got here before I'd posted it, hence the confusion. Explanation for that is below. --Calair 05:23, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attn 222.152.239.*: why I've deleted your material. 

message: NPOV is an important and delicate consideration in an article like this, but please try to avoid constructions like "some people might consider" and "some would consider". Chick's views are controversial; that some people agree with them, and that some people don't, is not. When something is already clearly identified as a viewpoint rather than statement of fact ('consider') , and it's acknowledged that not everybody shares that viewpoint ('some'), it's unnecessary to water it down further. --Calair 23:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. Sam Spade Wants you to vote! 14:14, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Weasel wording'