Preacher

[GORDON]

something about adultry?

[GORDON]

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... jesus.html

[Vince]

I've been storing them on my DVR for a binge viewing.

I had heard the previous episode was pretty blasphemous. As I stated previously, I read the books and pointed out this stuff was coming. I have no issue with it, not being religious myself, but I get others doing so.

But committing adultery? Hard pass.

Family Guy did it first. Season 13. Episode 6. "The 2000 Year Old Virgin"

To me, this is interesting seeing where lines get crossed. I think of films/shows like "Oh God You Devil", Family Guy, Simpsons, South Park, the ones with Morgan Freeman as God, Dogma, The Passion of the Christ, etc. and all the outrage they did or didn't spark. Here's all these instances of God or Jesus being depicted and while folks get mad there's been little violence (right?). Meanwhile, print a cartoon of Allah and death comes, but that's a different topic.

Going back to Family Guy, Season 10, episode 12, "Livin' on a Prayer", Lois kidnaps a kid with cancer whose parents believe in the healing power of faith and won't take him to the doctor. Lois makes the argument at the end that God gave us the ability to learn, develop medicine, and cure the illness. Thus, God's will is in the hands of doctors and modern medicine.

Taking that logic a step further, if God is infallible, and God made us in His image, then doesn't it stand to reason that He's fine with Preacher?

Serious question. I'm not trying to twist logic or corner anyone. Just curious about those lines.

For me it all falls into what was the intention. I never watch Family Guy because Seth MacFarlane is a nozzle. So I've maybe seen a combined 20 minutes of the series over the years. But what you described doesn't offend me. The episode wasn't targeting God, but rather how some worship Him. I actually enjoyed The Passion of The Christ. The only part of that film that bothered me at all was when Judas was slapping Jesus around. The notion that Jesus would experience temptation to me was half the point of His being here (God now knows human weakness). The fact that He resisted temptation was the other half (it can be done). So that one never bothered me. Dogma just was just sort of a philosophical mess as best I can recall. I wasn't overly offended by it, I think because it was so far removed from anything actually scriptural that it just didn't really bother me. Kind of like a NASA engineer being offended by a 1940's Buck Roger movie. Thinking of South Park and the fight between Jesus and the Devil, that was actually a good moral lesson. It didn't really depict a weakness of God or Christ as much as the eternal weakness of the human condition. Evil will trick you and play on your human weaknesses. I actually found that episode one that put Christianity in a good light as much as a South Park episode will. Loved the Oh, God movies.

This Preacher episode turned me off because it is acknowledging there is a God, acknowledging the Son of God, but at the same time telling all Christians their religion is false because Jesus was not the perfect sacrifice for the sins of the world because he actually was not without sin. That Jesus was lying to everyone. This one wasn't a fresh take on the old story of the New Testament. This was an assault on the religion itself.

[Malcolm]

If this bothers you, you probably shouldn't read the literature that inspired the show.

[Leisher]

"Million Moms" want it cancelled.

I doubt their 12K and change signatures mean shit considering most of them aren't watching anyway.

[Vince]

"Million Moms" want it cancelled.

I doubt their 12K and change signatures mean shit considering most of them aren't watching anyway.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of that sort of thing. The big drop off in viewership might make a difference, though. Don't know if that was just a blip, but I saw that the episode in question and the following one had a pretty significant falling off.

Been thinking a lot about your question ealrier about where I draw the line on what is offensive to me and what isn't. Questions that I think long and hard about are the best ones, so thanks for that. Been thinking about the movie Legion. I thought the ending was rather silly. I don't think God would need Archangel Michael to angelsplain to Him why He should not give up on humanity. But the writer had an idea for a story and if he hadn't written that into the ending it would have been a pretty bleak conclusion to the film. I wasn't offended by it because it wasn't the writer's intention to offend me.

Preacher was written to offend me (and all Christians). Portraying Christ as an adulterer was not germane to the story. My inference is he doesn't like Christians much. And that's okay. I won't go to a party I'm not invited to.

[Leisher]

Don't know if that was just a blip, but I saw that the episode in question and the following one had a pretty significant falling off.

Here are the actual numbers episode by episode.

I honestly wonder how many of the people who stopped watching were religious folks, like yourself, who didn't know what the series was about or where it was going when it started.

I would bet money that a lot of religious folks watched because of the title, while non-religious folks didn't watch because of the title.

What will be interesting is seeing if the Million Moms thing actually boosts their ratings if it gets enough press, similar to what happened to Married with Children.

The big drop off in viewership might make a difference, though.

Despite the drop off from episode 1 it's one of their highest rated shows, thus Preacher will more than likely get a third season.

Preacher was written to offend me (and all Christians). Portraying Christ as an adulterer was not germane to the story. My inference is he doesn't like Christians much. And that's okay. I won't go to a party I'm not invited to.

Despite Garth Ennis being an atheist, I don't believe he wrote anything to offend. Writers don't write for you, they write for themselves. He has stated: “It’s the notion of faith itself that’s interesting to me. What people are prepared to do because of this belief they have,” he said. “The effect that they’re prepared to have on the world, the things they’re prepared to do to their fellow human beings. The way they’re prepared to impose their belief on others.” That's what he's exploring in Preacher. (Or he did explore since he wrote the series two decades ago.) That's why it goes so off the rails. "Where is God during all this horrible stuff?" As Dominic Cooper points out: “It upset me that a lot of people are saying Preacher is anti-religious. I think it couldn’t be further from it,” Mr. Cooper told me. “It just brings questions to the forefront. Which it needs to, at the moment. In times of crisis in the world, the conversation is on the tip of people’s tongues every day. The moment you open a newspaper, you’re confronted by the question of faith, and of belief.”

Did Christ have to be an adulterer for the story? He needed kids, which is important to the story, and I think you turned it off before you saw why? But did he need to be an adulterer to have them? Probably not for the story, but if you're weaving a tale where bad stuff is happening under God's watch and he's doing nothing to correct it, then why wouldn't his kid also break some rules? From my standpoint, Ennis takes all the top church people/figures and their power has corrupted them absolutely. That's the point of the story. This human, who has gone through his own struggles with faith, now has the power to ask the question that everyone has always asked: "Why does God let bad things happen to good people?"

So going back to Ennis, again I don't think he's trying to offend, but rather he wants to explore religious beliefs as a non-believer. He's exploring his own questions and theories about how things would play out (and let's get this out of the way: based on the history of organized religion, he's not off base), so can he be forgiven for toying a bit with the source material? Although, as some light Googling has revealed to me, Jesus being "without sin" is not agreed upon by all Christians.

I mean, based on Christians' religious beliefs, Satan happened under God's watch even though He would have had the power to stop it, right? (Seriously asking.) However, if God is all things, then wouldn't He need that Yin to his Yang? And wouldn't it make sense to throw a touch of it into your kid to live with the humans?

You don't have to believe any of it, but if it makes you think about whether it works within your belief structure and why or why not, then Ennis' writing did its job. Nowhere in his story is he telling you religion is bullshit. In fact, his story can't exist without religion being real. He's simply taking it to an extreme where everyone involved acts in the most awful manner possible, as humans with power tend to do, and explores whether or not the core belief structure still remains intact at that extreme.

If nothing else, we're having an interesting conversation about religion because this show exists, so doesn't that make it a good show? It entertains and sparks discussion... Doesn't that also, and follow me here, make it sort of an ad for faith and religion?

[Vince]

I mean, based on Christians' religious beliefs, Satan happened under God's watch even though He would have had the power to stop it, right? (Seriously asking.) However, if God is all things, then wouldn't He need that Yin to his Yang? And wouldn't it make sense to throw a touch of it into your kid to live with the humans?

The idea of the nature of Satan has changed with Christianity. In Judaism he isn't really the ruler of hell. The name translates into "the prosecutor" (if memory serves). He doesn't tempt people. They have free will. His job is to make the case against you after you die. I think I tend to believe that take on his nature. Fits better with the notion of free will.

And I don't mind people taking shots at religion itself. Man is weak and tends to screw things up. The notion that a religious organization would inbreed a descendant of Christ to try to keep the blood line pure didn't bother me at all. Mostly because I could easily see them doing that.

It would be interesting if in the middle of all the one of the angels casually mentioned that Charles Darwin was a paranoid schizophrenic to whom they were whispering the theory of evolution to see how many idiots would think they came from apes. I wonder what the reaction to that throw away line would be?

Did Christ have to be an adulterer for the story? He needed kids, which is important to the story, and I think you turned it off before you saw why? But did he need to be an adulterer to have them? Probably not for the story, but if you're weaving a tale where bad stuff is happening under God's watch and he's doing nothing to correct it, then why wouldn't his kid also break some rules?

That's why it bothered me. There is a pretty solid case for the theory that Jesus was actually married. In order to be a rabbi, he would have been. I saw a documentary on that notion and they spoke with a Catholic priest who said that while he didn't believe Christ was married, if he was it didn't contradict anything in the New Testament. That's why it really bothered me. It was a fix that would have been minimal to the story. Actually made no difference to the story at all really, other than turning the volume on the "offensive" way down from 11.

Despite the drop off from episode 1 it's one of their highest rated shows, thus Preacher will more than likely get a third season.

Very well could. But as you often point out with the DC movies, a 4th place series (at one point) on AMC may or may not be profitable. I can't imagine that show is cheap to make. And I won't lose sleep if it's renewed. I just won't be watching. I don't have any personal animus towards them. Just not for me.

[GORDON]

I have S2 on the DVR, but haven't started watching yet. I'm just not yet convinced I enjoyed that weird first season. Leaning toward deleting it all.... plenty of other stuff on Netflix I don't have time to watch.

[Leisher]

I have S2 on the DVR, but haven't started watching yet. I'm just not yet convinced I enjoyed that weird first season. Leaning toward deleting it all.... plenty of other stuff on Netflix I don't have time to watch.

Hang onto it until I binge it. I'll let you know. Aside from Vince's reservations regarding material, I've heard a lot of good reviews.

Vince, I'll get to your post tomorrow when I'm more awake. Too interesting of a conversation to sleepily scan through.

[Vince]

Vince, I'll get to your post tomorrow when I'm more awake. Too interesting of a conversation to sleepily scan through.

I agree! I am curious as to where you were seeing material on Christians that believe that Jesus was not without sin though. Not that I think it's out of the realm (lots of people believe lots of stuff I find odd)

[Leisher]

Sorry for the delay. Forgot about this for a bit.

The idea of the nature of Satan has changed with Christianity. In Judaism he isn't really the ruler of hell. The name translates into "the prosecutor" (if memory serves). He doesn't tempt people. They have free will. His job is to make the case against you after you die. I think I tend to believe that take on his nature. Fits better with the notion of free will.

Have you ever seen Defending Your Life?

And I don't mind people taking shots at religion itself. Man is weak and tends to screw things up. The notion that a religious organization would inbreed a descendant of Christ to try to keep the blood line pure didn't bother me at all. Mostly because I could easily see them doing that.

The inbreed people are my favorite thing about the story because it's so fucking realistic. We did that shit with royal bloodlines, why wouldn't we with Jesus'? Inbreeding them for that long would create horrifically mutated and stupid people, yet somehow, still considered "right". I mean, I know what the end game was for the royals, but for the church? If Jesus is returning, do you need to save this blood?

It would be interesting if in the middle of all the one of the angels casually mentioned that Charles Darwin was a paranoid schizophrenic to whom they were whispering the theory of evolution to see how many idiots would think they came from apes. I wonder what the reaction to that throw away line would be?

I think it'd be a mix of reactions. Those with sanity would realize it's just a show where there's an angel, thus anything he says would make sense as canon. The asshole atheists that need to tell everyone and shit on any belief not exactly like theirs would be pissed.

That's why it bothered me. There is a pretty solid case for the theory that Jesus was actually married. In order to be a rabbi, he would have been. I saw a documentary on that notion and they spoke with a Catholic priest who said that while he didn't believe Christ was married, if he was it didn't contradict anything in the New Testament. That's why it really bothered me. It was a fix that would have been minimal to the story. Actually made no difference to the story at all really, other than turning the volume on the "offensive" way down from 11.

I thought it was fine because I always believed he was sent to live among man as a man. Thus, while able to perform miracles, he had to have sin in his heart. He wasn't going to disrespect dad, murder, steal, etc., so the most obvious of the ten commandments he could break was that one. Plus, it fits "being a man" as men are programmed by nature to want to spread their seed. Society really has trouble with that tidbit based on our own "rules", but it's a fact.

Very well could. But as you often point out with the DC movies, a 4th place series (at one point) on AMC may or may not be profitable. I can't imagine that show is cheap to make.

It will, and it'll be bolstered by The Walking Dead money. AMC is going for quality right now, and offensive or not, Preacher is the kind of show people discuss and want to binge. Thus, their asking price to Netflix or Hulu can make that money back. Plus, it keeps them in business with Seth Rogan.

I am curious as to where you were seeing material on Christians that believe that Jesus was not without sin though. Not that I think it's out of the realm (lots of people believe lots of stuff I find odd)

I googled it when I was researching if Jesus was considered without sin. I found all sorts of articles and opinions split on the idea. You could tell some were very grounded in opinion (or hoping) versus the ones based on scripture or teachings. Still it was an interesting dive. It's always interesting to see how different people interpret the same written words whether it's the Bible, the Quran, the Constitution, an internet post, etc.

[Vince]

Have you ever seen Defending Your Life?

I have not. Don't think I've ever heard of it before.

The inbreed people are my favorite thing about the story because it's so fucking realistic. We did that shit with royal bloodlines, why wouldn't we with Jesus'? Inbreeding them for that long would create horrifically mutated and stupid people, yet somehow, still considered "right". I mean, I know what the end game was for the royals, but for the church? If Jesus is returning, do you need to save this blood?

That's an interesting point about what would be the purpose of keeping his bloodline pure if He's coming back. And as I said, I could easily see the church or some religious sect doing this.

I think it'd be a mix of reactions. Those with sanity would realize it's just a show where there's an angel, thus anything he says would make sense as canon. The asshole atheists that need to tell everyone and shit on any belief not exactly like theirs would be pissed.

Agreed. As I've stated elsewhere, the "asshole athiest" are the ones I consider less athiest than "pissed at God with a chip on their shoulder" (or Malcolm).

Plus, it fits "being a man" as men are programmed by nature to want to spread their seed. Society really has trouble with that tidbit based on our own "rules", but it's a fact.

Men also tend to be programmed to kill other men that are encroaching on our mates, but society has also deemed that a problem. Intact families tend to produce the most productive and emotionally functional kids. So while it's in our nature, trying to keep our nature in check is most beneficial as a society. And for the non religious, that can be seen as the useful point of religion. For me it was always two fold (the point of Christ being here as a human). First to show us that living a sin free life was possible. Second for God to understand limitations of being human, and along with that just how difficult it is to be tempted. If you believe God to be a just god, then I don't know how one could believe that we would be held to a standard that he didn't hold his own son to. And if he didn't hold to it, why wouldn't a just god amend it while he was here?

I googled it when I was researching if Jesus was considered without sin. I found all sorts of articles and opinions split on the idea. You could tell some were very grounded in opinion (or hoping) versus the ones based on scripture or teachings. Still it was an interesting dive. It's always interesting to see how different people interpret the same written words whether it's the Bible, the Quran, the Constitution, an internet post, etc.

Okay. I was seeing some about it, but nothing from anyone that would identify themselves as any sort of expert on scripture. Like you said, those based in opinion and hope. Making sure I wasn't missing something

[Leisher]

Started watching Season 2 last night. That first episode is amazing. Got through three and loved them all.

Was thinking last night that if this wasn't about religion this would probably be the most talked about show on TV.

I mean, I've never seen intestine used that way before...

[Leisher]

Just noticed you replied Vince, sorry.

I have not. Don't think I've ever heard of it before.

You should watch it. It's a different take on the afterlife without being offensive or dismissive of any other belief. In fact, you could argue it both includes and/or excludes, depending on your own beliefs, religion.

Albert Brooks and Meryl Streep are the stars. Rip Torn is also there being Rip Torn. It's kind of a romantic comedy, but without slapstick humor. I want to call it adult humor, but that implies "dirty stuff", and it's not. It's humor for grown ups. Albert Brooks has that dry wit that allows him to deliver punch lines seriously, but it's hilarious.

Excellent movie and criminally overlooked as a classic.

"asshole athiest"

I have an Uncle whose entire FB feed is about how tolerant he is and intelligent and self aware and then hundreds of posts about how dumb religion is and everyone who believes in something is a moronic sheep, and blah blah blah. I don't understand people's need to crap all over the beliefs of others if they're not hurting anybody. It's one thing to have a celebrity come out and say the Earth is flat and we make jokes about that to each other on this kinda private corner of the internet. It's another thing to post to your brother's FB page daily about how dumb he is for believing in God.

Men also tend to be programmed to kill other men that are encroaching on our mates, but society has also deemed that a problem. Intact families tend to produce the most productive and emotionally functional kids. So while it's in our nature, trying to keep our nature in check is most beneficial as a society.

This is a whole different conversation we should have elsewhere. Taking religion out of it, is it beneficial to society or the species for us to "keep our nature in check"?

First to show us that living a sin free life was possible. Second for God to understand limitations of being human, and along with that just how difficult it is to be tempted. If you believe God to be a just god, then I don't know how one could believe that we would be held to a standard that he didn't hold his own son to. And if he didn't hold to it, why wouldn't a just god amend it while he was here?

“To err is human, to forgive, divine.”

Why would God send Jesus to walk the Earth as human if Jesus didn't experience humanity? Why would Jesus die for our sins if we could live without sin?

I get setting an example, but Jesus is the son of God, so it's not a great example. He's not a normal person. If a person can't be tempted and can resist everything, they're not experiencing what the rest of us experience.

My exhibit A would be the pedophile priest scandal that goes from just about every corner of the planet to the very core of organized religion. These are people who dedicated their lives to living a sin-free life and look at the astonishingly large number of them that committed one of the worst sins.

Also, God is infallible, right? He knows us. He knows we can't live without sin. Sending someone here who cannot sin to showcase how we shouldn't sin seems like bad marketing. Know what I mean? It makes far more sense to have Jesus sin, yet still be a good person, and still be worthy of heaven. THAT message is one people can relate to and get behind.

"I'll try my best not to sin, but if I do it doesn't make me a monster. I can also ask for forgiveness, but I must feel remorse."

And I'm not trying to break your beliefs or anything, just pointing out why it would make sense for Jesus to sin.

[GORDON]

Just noticed you replied Vince, sorry.

I have not. Don't think I've ever heard of it before.

You should watch it. It's a different take on the afterlife without being offensive or dismissive of any other belief. In fact, you could argue it both includes and/or excludes, depending on your own beliefs, religion.

Albert Brooks and Meryl Streep are the stars. Rip Torn is also there being Rip Torn. It's kind of a romantic comedy, but without slapstick humor. I want to call it adult humor, but that implies "dirty stuff", and it's not. It's humor for grown ups. Albert Brooks has that dry wit that allows him to deliver punch lines seriously, but it's hilarious.

Excellent movie and criminally overlooked as a classic.

It is a good movie. And yes, Rip Torn is in there hosting an Afterlife Kegger.

[Leisher]

Ha! I was going to reference that line too.

[Leisher]

Finished the season. I thought it was mostly excellent.

The Killer of Saints is all sorts of badass. Hell was pretty interesting. Herr Star is fucking awesome and a great villain. (Honestly, these things made the season.)

The cliffhanger is probably pretty stunning for people who haven't read the books.

There were weak points, of course. Tulips struggle was a bit annoying, but part of her character development, so whatever. The biggest problem I had was the Preacher/Star story in the final two episodes. It came out of nowhere and made no sense.

Watched the controversial scene that sent Vince away, and I thought it was well done. Oddly, I thought it was pretty respectful and showed Jesus as, let's say better than us... Your enjoyment still will hinge on whether you think Jesus can sin or not. I think they go out of their way to really point out that this was his only sin. One time and done.

Excellent show that's worth your time.

[Vince]

Just noticed you replied Vince, sorry.

No worries

I have not. Don't think I've ever heard of it before.

You should watch it. It's a different take on the afterlife without being offensive or dismissive of any other belief. In fact, you could argue it both includes and/or excludes, depending on your own beliefs, religion.

I'll have to see if I can find it.

Why would God send Jesus to walk the Earth as human if Jesus didn't experience humanity? Why would Jesus die for our sins if we could live without sin?

I get setting an example, but Jesus is the son of God, so it's not a great example. He's not a normal person. If a person can't be tempted and can resist everything, they're not experiencing what the rest of us experience.

But he was tempted according to the New Testament. In the desert he was tempted three times. And I would say that Jesus had two things that would allow anyone to resist sin without being the Son of God. First would be the absolute knowledge (not faith) that God in fact does exist as described in the Old Testament. The second would be a complete understanding of the infinity of the afterlife. Most people can endure a lot knowing the suffering is finite and the rewards are great. We do it every day. We don't have sex with our spouses or girlfriends as soon as the urge hits us. We usually wait until we've left Walmart or Kroger or whatever because our experience is that it can wait. If you had no memory of being married or knowledge that time existed outside of only a window of the last 12 hours, we would probably do a whole lot of things that we wouldn't otherwise do. We are to follow God's law because of faith. Jesus didn't require faith.

My exhibit A would be the pedophile priest scandal that goes from just about every corner of the planet to the very core of organized religion. These are people who dedicated their lives to living a sin-free life and look at the astonishingly large number of them that committed one of the worst sins.

Very true, but I have long theorized that most people get this wrong. I don't think being a priest made one more likely to sexually molest a child. I think my Catholics became priests because they had desires that they knew they shouldn't be having, and they hoped that swearing celibacy would protect them. Very much the same way that a number of gay men raised in the church joined the priesthood because they didn't want to sin in the eyes of the church. I don't think they were ever confronting their demons. They were trying to hide from them, which is way they almost always failed. Not going to attempt to defend the church's cover-up of these crimes, but the percentage of teachers and daycare workers that molested children was much higher than those rates in the priesthood. I think it was played up considerably by the press because it fit their agenda.

Also, God is infallible, right? He knows us. He knows we can't live without sin. Sending someone here who cannot sin to showcase how we shouldn't sin seems like bad marketing. Know what I mean?

I absolutely disagree with this point. Most people resent the cop that writes them a ticket for a rolling stop and then blows the traffic light so he can meet his buddies at the coffee shop. Plus, which heart surgery center would get the most business? The one with the motto "We have a 100% success rate", or the one with the motto, "Hey, sometimes we screw up just like you!"? Having a fallible god might make us all feel better about our own shortcomings, but I would feel much worse about the Universe in general.

And I'm not trying to break your beliefs or anything, just pointing out why it would make sense for Jesus to sin.

Not at all! I agree that these discussions are interesting.

[Leisher]

Renewed for season 4.

It's AMC, so it can't touch the books in terms of content, but it's still good.