quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Here's two tracts I have been using recently. I'd like to hear what y'all think of them.

After some hesitation and much thought, I’ll take “y’all” as applying to me as well, even though you may not have had someone like me in mind when you asked the question.

As you have so many times, KSGM, you once again prompted me to ponder the matter at some length and to read the tracts myself. After doing so, I was reminded of something I first read long ago, and this was the AI Copilot response when I asked it to refresh my memory about the expression:

“The phrase ‘the medium is the message,’ coined by Canadian communication theorist Marshall McLuhan in his 1964 book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, is a foundational concept in media theory. Here’s what it means:

“Core Idea

“McLuhan argued that the medium through which information is conveyed has a greater impact on society than the actual content of the message. In other words, the form of communication—whether it’s print, television, radio, or social media—shapes how we think, interact, and organize our lives more profoundly than the specific information being transmitted.”

An example of what I believe that refers to is the difference between a book’s discussion of an historical event and a TV documentary. When I read a book I can take as much time as I wish to absorb and think about what it’s saying. A TV show, however, carries me along at its own pace, not mine. Also, and although there are many unfortunate exceptions these days, historians who write books are usually less interested in entertaining readers than informing them, and obviously don’t need to keep them engaged to stick around for the next TV commercial.

So, what does that have to do with religious tracts? What I’m going to discuss is how information is presented rather than its medium, i.e., print or visual, but I believe the fundamental issue is the same: what are the things that affect what we get from the information that’s presented to us?

First, what are the primary purposes of tracts or other religious teachings in the form of sermons, videos, books, etc.? One is to convert nonbelievers or other skeptics of the truth of certain beliefs, and the other is to reinforce or validate the beliefs of current believers. The former, though, is a much less commonly-intended purpose than the latter. I would say that the two tracts you linked don’t make any attempt to convert nonbelievers, and for two reasons.

The first is that they do not present independent reasons for belief, they consist of statements of Christian doctrine. “You will meet Jesus” does not provide any rational reasons for why anyone should believe the claim; it’s a statement to remind believers of what they should believe.

The second obvious reason why the tracts are not intended to convert nonbelievers is how they depict us: as unthinking, ignorant, narcissistic brutes, and they tend to support the common idea that nonbelievers cannot possibly have any moral sense and by implication at least are responsible for all of the world’s evils. And assuming that even if a tract that started out that way later included something that might support the concept of intelligent design that could possibly cause someone to question his unbelief, how likely is it that an unbeliever would get that far?

To return to the tracts’ intended audience, i.e., Christian believers, what effect might those depictions of people like me have on them?

Most of my closest relatives are very devout born-again Christians with whom I (mostly) get along with very well. One paid me the compliment of, “You really are a great uncle,” and another admitted that I knew the Bible better than most of the Christians she knew. I therefore don’t believe that any of them has reason to consider me to be immoral, ignorant, brutish, or (particularly) evil. I can’t, of course, answer for any of them, but I can question how they would react to those tracts while thinking of me personally.

Based on what I’ve seen here, KSGM, I have great respect for you and your beliefs. I hope none of this comes across as offensive in any way because it is just intended to be my considered thoughts about a question you posed.

As always, thanks for giving me something else to think about.

And thank YOU for your very thoughtful reply, sigfreund. You were certainly included in the "y'all", and your feedback is very valuable and much appreciated.

I find nothing in your post disagreeable. Your unique viewpoints are very helpful.

I will say that there is somewhat of a disconnect, when you strictly apply worldly logic to aspects of evangelism. Christians know that prayer will invoke a degree of God's influence; in His perfect measure and timing. We also know that His Word (scripture) has inherent influential power. We take these truths into account when sharing the Gospel. That said: shortcomings perceived in what you see printed on the pages are compensated for.

I have recently invested in another tract, from a different publisher. It is still a comic presentation. It can be viewed here, for anyone who's curious...

https://livingwaters.com/store...a-good-person-comic/

I'll also share a Gospel message of my own authorship. It is a work in progress. It's purpose is to attempt to share the "full Gospel" as concisely as possible. I welcome feedback, of course...


God made man to love Him and one another, and be loved by Him. His design intent is perfect, as we are made in His likeness. The intent is love. For love to be true it must be chosen. Free will as part of His perfect design enables true love.

The free will required for true love also enables the inverse. Love comes with a particular inventory of characteristics: trust, respect, adoration, obedience. As part of God’s perfect plan for us, which enables Him to express the perfect love that he designed us for, He gave us an opportunity to trust, respect, and obey Him in the very beginning. Instead of trusting, respecting, adoring, and obeying God, we doubted, dishonored, and disobeyed Him. We expressed enmity toward our creator.

With this disobedience, sin and shame entered the world. Sin is our nature; shame, guilt, and just condemnation are its result. Just condemnation in the form of everlasting punishment, often described as a burning fire. Jesus affirms the nature of our sentence and emphasizes the seriousness of sin in scripture. Our inevitable failure in the garden, and the perpetual failure thereafter, necessitates the sacrifice of Christ, which is the ultimate display of God’s love for us, and the ultimate example of the love he intends for us to express to Him and each other.

THE GOOD NEWS>>>
Though we don’t deserve it, God made Himself flesh, in His Son Jesus Christ, and allowed Himself to be killed, so that He could serve our death sentence; pay the debt that we owe God for our sins. This sacrifice grants us eternal life in perfect communion with Him.

He did this for everyone.

He is eager for us to accept this gift, as if he is knocking at our door, presenting it with an outstretched arm. All we need to do is receive it. With it comes not only freedom from our justified death sentence, but the richness and guidance of a relationship with Him, by way of an indwelling of His spirit in our hearts.

To accept His gift, we need only repent of our sins and confess Jesus as Lord, knowing in our hearts that he made himself a sacrifice for us on the cross, was raised from the dead, and ascended into heaven.

Oh, yeah: I am curious what you mean by that. I am familiar with the usual meaning of the word, but what are you referring to about the tracts?

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
As an iconoclast I could not in good faith hold on to either of those.

[Emphasis added to original statement.]

quote:

but what are you referring to about the tracts?

No doubt the copious artistic depictions of people, places, and circumstances.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

quote:

but what are you referring to about the tracts?

No doubt the copious artistic depictions of people, places, and circumstances.

That occurred to me as a possible reference, but I was not sure.

Two articles I have found interesting in the past couple months:

This one presents the best, most objective explanation of the Catholic Marian doctrine that I have read, with an emphasis on Protestant analogy...
https://www.catholic.com/magaz...scripture-protestant

This one is of less substance, and more ecumenical eye-roll. But I found it interesting nonetheless...
https://www.hrc.org/resources/...-about-homosexuality

As a sort of counter to that article, using a bit of scripture that they also cited (they'd have been irresponsible to ignore it), we can poke a significant hole in their narrative.

In the KJV, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 reads as follows: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

"nor effeminate"

Effeminate is defined in the concordance, according to its Greek origin, as "fine, soft; (n.) male prostitute, a male homosexual who is the passive sex partner".

This does not paint the picture of an abuser, a predator, a rapist, or anyone else who is victimizing another. It makes it clear that homosexuality wasn't different then than it is now.

The bottom line is unchanged: As God hates the sin, but loves the sinner, we are to do the same. We do not affirm sinful behavior. Nor are we to appear to soften our position on it in any way. Softening only leads down a slippery slope that ultimately arrives at this destination mentioned in a previously-shared article...

"Ecumenism, once billed as a way to strengthen churches through unity, has become a tool for softening doctrine until nothing distinct remains.

It doesn’t resolve differences—it erases them. The result is not a united church, but a watered-down faith that mirrors the culture and offers nothing the world doesn’t already have."

Are Catholics taught to identify as Christian, under the broader umbrella of Christianity?

I ask because two recent encounters went something like this...

Me: Are you a Christian?
Him or Her: I am Catholic.

They did not answer "Yes, I'm Catholic."

Of course the affirmative is very likely implied, with the statement about their Catholic faith being given as more detail. I understand this possibility.

However, if someone was to ask me the same question, I would certainly not answer "I'm a Baptist" or "I'm a Protestant".

I would merely answer "Yes" or "Yessir!". Or perhaps something even more enthusiastic, depending on the circumstances.

I admittedly only begrudgingly participated in my Catholic upbringing, and was certainly not in an honest relationship with Christ at that time in my life. I was always under the impression that Catholicism resides under the larger Christianity umbrella.

In thinking even harder about it as I type this, I wonder how I would have answered the same question years ago. I do believe I would have answered "Yes, I am a Catholic.", but I honestly can't say for sure.

In a sense, the term “catholic” means universal - and can refer to the “Church” as the bride of Christ/all believers.

My guess is Rome teaches people to say that, as it believes it should be the head of all believers.

I have seen forms where Catholic is a separate choice from Christian.

They respond like that because the term "Christian" over time has come to mean "Protestant" and they are making it clear they are not.

I have noticed that while Catholics certainly regard themselves as Christians, they ALWAYS identify as "Catholic" first or only.

My late grandmother, devout Catholic, used to call us "Holy Rollers"

My mother, a Catholic Christian, has a sort of Catholic "handbook" her father gave her in 1997, which is the date of the book's publication.

It has a part that says:

As a Catholic, if someone asks you if you have been "saved", you should say, "I am redeemed by the blood of Christ, I trust in Him alone for my salvation, and, as the Bible teaches, I am 'working out my salvation in fear and trembling', knowing that it is God's gift of grace that is working in me."

Short answer: Yes. So long as you're saying it because you know it's the truth, and not because a handbook told you that's what you should say.

Of course, non-Catholic Christians acknowledge that there are many "saved" and born-again Catholics. In my study so far, it seems that Catholicism teaches that sacraments are of extreme importance, but ultimately can't teach that they are required for salvation, even in the case of forgiveness of mortal sin.

The Catholic and Protestant distinction is never what I intended this thread to be about, but it is a subject that is frequently recurring in my life, due to my Catholic upbringing, my current non-Catholic affiliation, and the ongoing presence of Catholicism in my family.

It's a divide that is important for us to minimize, in furtherance of the Kingdom.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

As a Catholic, if someone asks you if you have been "saved", you should say, "I am redeemed by the blood of Christ, I trust in Him alone for my salvation, and, as the Bible teaches, I am 'working out my salvation in fear and trembling', knowing that it is God's gift of grace that is working in me."

Short answer: Yes. So long as you're saying it because you know it's the truth, and not because a handbook told you that's what you should say.


It's a divide that is important for us to minimize, in furtherance of the Kingdom.

There is a division, but the division is not between Catholic Christians and non-Catholic Christians.

The division is between those who are saved and those who aren't saved, also known as the lost. There are both saved and lost people in the Catholic Church and there are saved and lost people in the non-Catholic Christian Churches.

The words from that handbook is theologically spot on. Lost people can say those exact words same as saved people but the difference is the same as carrying in your pocket a check made out to your name for a million dollars. The words and paper on it prove to be a real check but you don't get the benefits of that check until you endorse that check in the back and deposit it into your account.

My wife tells a story of when she was a student in college and she was in a group being trained to share the gospel to other students. One person returned to say he went out and shared the gospel with five people and six people got saved, including himself.

the Bible says you can know the right theology, do the right things, and still be lost. "On that day, many will say to me, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name? And then will I declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness." (Matthew 7:22,23)

"I never knew you" refers to not having a personal relationship with Jesus by believing on Him and His death as the payment for your sins.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

quote:

but what are you referring to about the tracts?

No doubt the copious artistic depictions of people, places, and circumstances.

I'm not Muslim, I do however take the 2nd commandment seriously, depictions of God are not appropriate. Christ did come and fulfill the law but the 10 commandments are not the law they are direct commandments. I also do my best to keep the lords day, the sabbath for God.

quote:

I do however take the 2nd commandment seriously, depictions of God are not appropriate. Christ did come and fulfill the law but the 10 commandments are not the law they are direct commandments.

Understood. In Exodus 20:4-5, He says we shouldn't make any likeness of any thing in the earth beneath either. He says not to bow down to them or serve them. Is a still-life painting of fruit or an image of an animal regarded in the same way? It seems the differentiator is the worship of said image.

That said, so long as someone doesn't worship an artist's depiction of God or Christ, wouldn't it be no different than an artists depiction of fruit or a duck, and therefore permissible under the 2nd commandment?

I am not trying to poke holes in things; I am trying to learn. It does say not to make a graven image or likeness of any thing that is in heaven or earth. When does an image become graven?

The concordance defines graven as an idol, usually carved out of wood or stone. This reinforces the idea of the qualifier being worship.

quote:

The division is between those who are saved and those who aren't saved, also known as the lost.

Indeed. Thank you for your ongoing contributions, Rey.

Saved is saved is saved. The Spirit is the Spirit is the Spirit.

A saved person is indwelled by the Spirit. There's no such thing as a Catholic spirit or a Baptist spirit. I do believe the Spirit uses different people in different ways, making best use of their inherent God-given strengths. But the Spirit would never be at odds with Himself.

My mother and I have seen the transcendence of denominational boundaries in our conversations. Seeing past, around, over, or through doctrinal and dogmatic differences that some see as irreconcilable.

This is one of the main protestant complaints about Catholicism, and I've heard it from many. Be it a crucifix or a statue of Mary. Doesn't matter. It is a graven image and thus we are all going to burn in hell for all eternity!

We do not worship these images. They are not "graven images" or "idols".

Yet another bibilical passage that protestants take out of context.

Many non-Catholic Christians use the passage you refer to, Exodus 20:4-5, to “prove” to Catholics that making “any graven images or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath” is detestable to God. But when this passage is read in context, it is not the making of images that is condemned but the worship of them.

In fact, five chapters later God commands the Israelites to make two golden statues of angels as part of the lid of the ark of the Covenant (Ex 25:17-19). That’s an image of something from heaven. Then, in 1 Kings 6, God commands that graven images of flowers and palm trees be made, as well as 15-foot tall statues of cherubim. And in Numbers 21, God commands that a bronze serpent be made and uses it to heal the Israelites. It was preserved for 800 years and then destroyed when some began to worship it (2 Kgs 18:4).

Catholics do not worship statues, because only God is deserving of adoration. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is adamant in affirming this (CCC 2112–2114). When a Catholic bows to a statue, he is not worshiping it any more than King Solomon worshiped Bathsheba when he bowed to her in 1 Kings 2:19. In other words, the honor given to images does not detract from the honor that is due to God. After all, if one member of the body is honored, the others should share in its joy (1 Cor 12:26).

If someone enters your house, he should expect to find a picture of your mother. So, when someone walks into a Catholic Church—the household of God—he should not be surprised to find a picture of the mother of God, along with the rest of the heavenly family!

In giving the Israelites a beautiful temple strewn with images (1 Kgs 6), God acknowledged the reason why he gave us our senses: to use them to worship him in spirit and truth."

https://www.catholic.com/qa/ho...ion-of-graven-images

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

quote:

I do however take the 2nd commandment seriously, depictions of God are not appropriate. Christ did come and fulfill the law but the 10 commandments are not the law they are direct commandments.

Understood. In Exodus 20:4-5, He says we shouldn't make any likeness of any thing in the earth beneath either. He says not to bow down to them or serve them. Is a still-life painting of fruit or an image of an animal regarded in the same way? It seems the differentiator is the worship of said image.

That said, so long as someone doesn't worship an artist's depiction of God or Christ, wouldn't it be no different than an artists depiction of fruit or a duck, and therefore permissible under the 2nd commandment?

I am not trying to poke holes in things; I am trying to learn. It does say not to make a graven image or likeness of any thing that is in heaven or earth. When does an image become graven?

The concordance defines graven as an idol, usually carved out of wood or stone. This reinforces the idea of the qualifier being worship.

As you've got quoted there, It's limited to depictions of God. And as Gustofer has clearly stated the catholic position of "It's not worship, its veneration!" However he clings to his icons like a child to his blanket. My reformed position is very simple, why should you, hopeless sinner, tempt yourself in such a fashion? Oh because the mother of a child emperor called a ecumenical council to countermand the immediately prior council because she liked pretty pictures?

Now, this will of course come to "The reformed don't like Beauty!"
Here is a random reformed church in Atlanta. https://x.com/PresbyInn/status...500953832005896?s=20

quote:

My reformed position is very simple, why should you, hopeless sinner, tempt yourself in such a fashion?

And THERE is the clarity I sought. That makes sense to me. It isn't necessarily backed-up by black and white scripture, but by Reformed logic, which is certainly sound. As with many things: not a "matter of salvation".

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
It isn't necessarily backed-up by black and white scripture, but by Reformed logic, which is certainly sound.

Wow.

What you have just said is that man knows better than God.

I'll do my best to stay out of this thread going forward.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
It isn't necessarily backed-up by black and white scripture, but by Reformed logic, which is certainly sound.

Wow.

What you have just said is that man knows better than God.

I'll do my best to stay out of this thread going forward.

Nehushtan.

No, Gustofer. I hope you don't avoid this thread.

I said I understand their Reformed logic as it's applied to that matter.

I don't subscribe to it.

He didn't say he thinks you or anyone else is condemned for hanging pictures of Mary or Christ. I agree with your assessment, as it's what I shared initially. I also agree that the flesh is weak and desperately wicked (and there is plenty of black and white scripture for that). I take zero issue with the idea that keeping images out of the mix altogether is perhaps a good one.

I don't agree that this particular Reformed logic is backed up by scripture in the commandments. Nor do I think it's a better guideline than what God issued in the 2nd commandment.

Fender does supply a scriptural reference in 2 Kings 18:4, which is described as an "iconoclastic reform".

I do not think I know better than God. Please do not imply that I do.

We are all edified by this thread. Thank you to all, for the ongoing participation.