The God from Preacher vs. The Presence

umm yeah that is how I would put it together in Christianity. When The Word sits on his throne he is somehow connected with Yahweh and they are able to talk back and forth between them each other. that is also why I would guess some of his power comes from sitting on the throne.

Also the thing about The Presence is that I would have to say it is another part of Yahweh, another name for it is The Holy Spirit. The Presence is Life/Hope/Light. so this is really a fight between The Holy Spirit vs Jesus Christ, 🙄

Originally posted by Hulking Hurler
Well, I believe it is possible to attack religion, as each faith and its congregation have, most of the time, at least some odd beliefs. However, I don't believe it is possible to satirise God himself, as to accurately make light of something, you have to, even if it is merely for the purpose of attacking it, acknowledge something of what you are attacking. And, of course, if the God of the Hebrews is to be attacked in a manner that is, for lack of a better term, fair and impartial, its basic attributes must be carried over. Yet, when you choose to attack a being that basically transcends our ability to typify, you are automatically wrong, as to expose a flaw, the flaw must, of course, be there in the first place. But by the very nature of God, he cannot be flawed, in any manner. So, if I follow that path of belief, then a satire about a God must inherently be either false or inaccurate, as choosing to judge something that is anathema to our logic requires that it, in the first place, conforms to our standards. As such, attacking such a being is beyond our means, as it stands outside of what we, humanity, have decided to be the status quo, due to the fact that it simply does not exist in our order of things, but in a higher, greater one.

See.. Here's the thing.. You, as a man, and like many other, are BELIEVING that your God isn't flawed, etc etc.. Based on writings of other men who believed the same thing. As men, we can only make assumptions and theories as to how things truely are.

😮‍💨

Originally posted by Hulking Hurler
Well, could you really say the God from Preacher was truly God? He had an equal in Jesse Custer with Genesis, and by the very nature of his omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, he should have been an absolute, while everything, anything, should not, in comparison, have been absolute. He was also very humanized, very anthropomorphic; to put it simply, he was a vain, petty, twit, who could not handle his burden. He wanted to experience his own creation, but, by the nature of his being, by his possession of infinite insight and awareness of all things at all times, should he not have already known what the experience was? Did he not already know what the experience was, what it felt like to experience the experience, what the experience was like; did he not already know the experience? After all, the experience of creation was, quite simply, out of his reaches, and the only was towards reaching it was to take on a physical or ephemeral form, and thereby risk harm. Yet, he is God; to use a tired, worn phraseology, impossible is nothing, but, in this case, it is quite literal. God defines the rules of existence, the laws that govern his creation; as a member of an order infinitely beyond such, should he not have been, by being God, been beyond the experience of the experience? And even if he was not able to fully comprehend the nature of his work, could he not have, at the dawn of time, by his power, removed that mental blockade, by way of his being God? If he was too idiotic to realize such a thing, as he seemed to be, would he not have realized his feeble-mindedness, and remedied it? The sheer simplicity of God defies description, as a temporal being, much less as an everlasting, celestial, almighty being. Where he should have been beatific, he was discontent. Where he should have been all-knowing, he was ignorant. Where he should have been all-powerful, he was helpless. Where he should have been supreme, he was least. Where he should have been God, he was man. If he could do all, see all, understand all, and be all, could he really have been such a uninspiring being, so as that, when he was confronted with a bump in the road, he resorted to childish tactics that got him cast into oblivion and left a murderer in the seat of God? He should have been the ideal of good, incapable of evil, of sin; yet, when the time came for him to rise up to the challenge, his true colors were revealed, and instead of being humane, he was human. He acted like a buffoon, a fool, and he did not even create his own cosmos. And, while the point could be argued that the entire point of the comic was to illustrate the foibles of life, the simple fact was that he, God, was characterized. A being that should defy all boundaries, all descriptions, and names; an ineffable, indivisible, inscrutable being was characterized. The worst part is, the characterization was not even in a favorable light, not portraying him as a sage, perspicacious, effulgent, in a word, godly, character, but, instead, as a imbecilic, infantile, petulant mortal. IMO, his divinity should be cast in doubt, due to his dubious actions, which consisted of being scared, even though fear is one of the concepts he created, being fooled, even though everything should have been known to him, being killed, even though he transcends all times and all spaces, being oblivious, even though he should have been cognizant of all, being forced into taking action, and subsequently failing, even though his actions and rulings should be irrefutable and insurmountable, save by himself, and being typified, even though he is God. Instead of portraying him as God, they portrayed him as a god, who was not in possession of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, but was, instead, merely a hominid creature in possession of more power than humanity, and, when confronted by his Word, revealed that he was a true coward. Not to mention, these are only the in-character reasons, with the light of God being far more dimmed when you examine the motive of the writer, and the purpose he wrote Preacher for. It throws quotes from the Bible that have been taken out of context in the faces of Christians, with the most obvious being that God, instead of possessing different facets of himself, such as the Trinity, is instead rivaled by the things that include his name in it. The blatant satirical insinuations seem to transform it from a well-written, thought-inspiring comic, to a hate-fest that tramples on the beliefs of a large slice of the population of this world, in addition to turning God from everything, into nothing. So, IMO only, the Presence would win, because, unlike the Preacher God, he seems to truly be a God.

dam dude are u related to GS or somethin?

Originally posted by BstrdMan
I'm guessing you're religious, of some sort or another...

See.. Here's the thing.. You, as a man, and like many other, are BELIEVING that your God isn't flawed, etc etc.. Based on writings of other men who believed the same thing. As men, we can only make assumptions and theories as to how things truely are.

But Hulking, you're looking too deep into it.
Ennis just wanted to be "shocking" and "dark", kinda like calling yourself the most antisocial person at your daily tea party.

"OOhhhh, let's make god a joke. Ohhhh brilliant!"

It was brilliant 30,000 years ago, now it's just uninspired writing.