Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Let's see where this discussion goes.

They call each other wannabe, start to fight and the universe dies.

the multiverse dies

they are equally yoked

all God from preacher has to do is internalize the power of his throne

DC's Gods are as confused as Marvels who knows? I know they both beat the phoenix

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.

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.

You certainly are entitled to your opinion, and I am sorry the Preacher offended you. I must ask you do you think its OK to satirise religion?

Wow, I knew someone would say that the one was less powerful, but I didn't quite expect that.

Pointing out the things that make it satire, but not really in such a way to make the satire understood. I have to admire the passion that was put into that though. . .

Originally posted by Creshosk
Wow, I knew someone would say that the one was less powerful, but I didn't quite expect that.

Pointing out the things that make it satire, but not really in such a way to make the satire understood. I have to admire the passion that was put into that though. . .

Passion indeed, The Preacher is on a lot of hate lists from Christian Groups on the Web and it alon with a number of comics has been called Satanic by some.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
Passion indeed, The Preacher is on a lot of hate lists from Christian Groups on the Web and it alon with a number of comics has been called Satanic by some. Ruffled a few feathers did it?

Then it's a success as a satire methinks.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
Passion indeed, The Preacher is on a lot of hate lists from Christian Groups on the Web and it alon with a number of comics has been called Satanic by some.
I am sorry if I offended you. I did not intend it in a way that was meant to insult a comic you seem to like. I just believe that the deity in Preacher is not an accurate representation of the Semitic God. And, as the Presence seems to be God, or at least a facet of the Supreme Being, it is just my opinion that the Presence would triumph.

Dr. Manhattan vs The Saint of Killers is a much cooler fight. Put that one up as a poll.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
You certainly are entitled to your opinion, and I am sorry the Preacher offended you. I must ask you do you think its OK to satirise religion?
Heh. Who's to say that isn't an accurate portrayal of God? Satire or not, I think it hits closer to home than they'd like to believe.

Oh.
And Custer for the Win. If God would actually HIDE from Custer, I'm thinkin the Presence would as well.

Originally posted by BstrdMan
Heh. Who's to say that isn't an accurate portrayal of God? Satire or not, I think it hits closer to home than they'd like to believe.But if it was accurate it wouldn't be satire.

Originally posted by BstrdMan
Oh.
And Custer for the Win. If God would actually HIDE from Custer, I'm thinkin the Presence would as well. Custer?

I don't see him in this fight.

And besides, if Custer's god is weaker than the prescence then the power of custer might be insignificant to effect presence.

However if Custer's is stronger, then you could be right.

So which is stronger the satire of or the based on?

Originally posted by Creshosk
But if it was accurate it wouldn't be satire.

Custer?

I don't see him in this fight.

And besides, if Custer's god is weaker than the prescence then the power of custer might be insignificant to effect presence.

However if Custer's is stronger, then you could be right.

So which is stronger the satire of or the based on?

Both are based on different aspects of religion.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
Both are based on different aspects of religion. One is more of a satire of it, and the other is more or less based on it.

Originally posted by Creshosk
One is more of a satire of it, and the other is more or less based on it.

not really, The presence is more esoteric - as is the source like in Marvel its likely none of these are the true Godhead as the TOAA may well not be in Marvel

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
not really, The presence is more esoteric - as is the source like in Marvel its likely none of these are the true Godhead as the TOAA may well not be in Marvel So you're saying that the Presence might not equal god?

from everything everyone has said the God in preacher is The Word, why God left was because Genesis had the same power as The Word and The Word has never had anything as powerful as him so it didnt know how to react to Genesis so God/The Word left. when God returned to Heaven to sit on his throne, The Saint was there waiting on him and that is when God/The Word talked with him and then The Saint shot him and Satan in the head and sat on Gods throne. In DC and in the Bible Yahweh/The Presence do not live in Heaven they are above it, The Word lives in Heaven and all of the Angelic Host worship him because it is God in the flesh aka Jesus Christ/The Host.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
You certainly are entitled to your opinion, and I am sorry the Preacher offended you. I must ask you do you think its OK to satirise religion?
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.

Originally posted by kevdude
from everything everyone has said the God in preacher is The Word, why God left was because Genesis had the same power as The Word and The Word has never had anything as powerful as him so it didnt know how to react to Genesis so God/The Word left. when God returned to Heaven to sit on his throne, The Saint was there waiting on him and that is when God/The Word talked with him and then The Saint shot him and Satan in the head and sat on Gods throne. In DC and in the Bible Yahweh/The Presence do not live in Heaven they are above it, The Word lives in Heaven and all of the Angelic Host worship him because it is God in the flesh aka Jesus Christ/The Host.

So you mean this thread might be God vs Jesus. . . lol

I was joking about that earlier. . .

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.
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.

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.
Yeah, but making God flawed is basically turning God into a god. While, of course, there is no real proof that God is flawless, the ideal of God is, and that's all we have to go on. Sure, you could argue that God is as mortal as us, but then, it wouldn't be God, and instead of trivializing God, you'd be belittling something false. To put it simply, when you create a flawed God, it is not God at all, because, the worship of God has, at its core, the belief that God is perfect, that we are not, and so, we cannot hope to understand God. All we have to go on when we examine the nature of God is faith, as when you attempt to analyze the unknowable by means known to man, your method breaks down. Like you said, we can only make assumptions and theories, but when that is all we have, that is what we have to use.

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.