Thursday, October 18, 2012

The Replacement Gods: Post-modern rant, or potential eye opener?

Hmm... now I guess it’s time for something a little “controversial.”

As a fair number of you are already aware, there’s been an ongoing (and in some cases heated) debate on the documentary “The Replacement Gods” among Christians and comic/ superhero/hero archetype enthusiasts alike.

And even larger debates among those who are Christians but still like their sci-fi and comic-related forms of entertainments, much like me. Yes, we are a rather interesting group - some consider us odd; others would even going as far as calling us hypocritical or even blasphemous for taking an interest in some forms of “geek culture,” whether in the forms of video games, reading material, or types of films or TV shows we enjoy.

Mind you, considering how large the crowds can be for events like Comic-Con, or Fan Expo, you would have to wonder if any Christian-themed conventions of a similar nature (if possible) would draw similar numbers of people. Well, before we get into what is considered proper forms of entertainment, or what is best for us to occupy our free time, we should address first some of the concerns of this documentary. I mean, after all, some of the earlier blog posts that were done here had already addressed three of the four mentioned forms of “geek culture”, but again that (among other things) can be discussed in the comments that I’m sure will follow when this blog entry is posted. I’m going to approach this one like I do with most of my previous posts, under the notion that you have seen this film in its entirety. If not, I suggest you do so beforehand, because this one is, well, an interesting one.

In fact, go ahead and watch it right here!

Now, when I was approached about this documentary (by a friend of mine) I at first wasn’t sure what the implication of this film was supposed to be. Even with my friend’s detailed description of it, it still sounded a bit iffy to me. I mean, comparing comic characters to events in the Bible? Well that, to some degree, I already knew has been done. In fact some comic characters that were created in the past couple of decades were created from a biblical standpoint one way or another (i.e. Spawn, Redeemer, Crimson, Hellboy, The Revelations comic series, etc.) And typically I’ve noticed that many of them that exist do tend to follow aspects of the book of Revelations, via an upcoming or ongoing variation of the last days, the Day of Judgment and/or the inevitable Armageddon.

To me, this is nothing new. Nonetheless, I decided to get a copy from my friend, and see this one for myself. At the beginning, it gave the usual history of the comic book, how it became the ideal form of entertainment during as after the Great Depression, and especially during WWII. There was mention of the change of comics during the late 80s and 90s, transitioning from the typical golden and silver age comics to more “unique” approach to comic storytelling. What wasn’t really mentioned in any detail however, during that time, was the dis-association of those comic under the ‘comic code authority’ and the rise of the independently-owned comic books. Why that wasn’t address in this film, I wasn’t sure….yet.

Another interesting (and slightly disturbing) area they address was the final episodes of the TV show, Smallville. Yes, I have seen the show, and actually liked it, but after a while it got a bit tiresome for me and I stopped following it. So when they announced the final season of the series, I didn’t bother to keep up with it since I was at least a couple of seasons behind. Yet at same time I was compelled to at least see how this series would eventually end. I did not see what led up to the final episode but the show itself seemed interesting at the time. But after reviewing what the documentary suggested, I started thinking, perhaps I overlooked a great deal.

The concept of that reversal of the mark of God (of sorts) being removed by Superman, though a little farfetched to me in some parts, did have some eerie counter-POV to what you read in the book of Daniel, and the book of Revelations.
Basically, the concept of the 2nd coming is redone as a negative apocalyptic event, and the person or being representing Christ in this jaded coming is the character Darkseid, one of the most powerful super villains in the DC universe, and arch-enemy of Superman. Meanwhile Superman (playing the role of the devil or Antichrist by biblical standards but reversed), is the hero preventing this villainized version of the 2nd coming from happening, and succeeding. 

Like I said before, it seems I missed a great deal with this series. Then again there were always those Nietzsche references in season one. And as many of you know, Nietzsche’s existentialist philosophy was very anti-religion. So I guess the signs were there. The rest of the documentary, I did find interesting. Some areas mentioned did give me more information on areas of the origins of the superhero archetype I’ve long suspected - origins such as from ancient mythologies, and storytelling, (Greek especially, Norse, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, etc) which would account in the compelling nature to make a story larger than life, which is where the actual storytelling with heroic figures originated…well that and from biblical sources as well. Probably the most intriguing thing I found about this documentary was on the alleged background of known comic writer and author Grant Morrison, specifically his supposed connection with various occult beliefs, which ‘may’ influence writing career within the DC (Detective Comic) graphic novel division. 

Assuming that this connection the documentary is implying is true, then even I would have to greatly reassess some of the past novels I currently have read, and the few I own. 

Now to the areas of this documentary that I had…concerns with. As a Christian, I can understand, and even emphasize to a degree, on what points this documentary is trying to get across. My issue however is what areas of theory they have in some places, and more importantly the areas they could have used to better their initial points, but never do. 

There are a lot of areas I had a problem with, but for the sake of conversation and debate (which I hope will occur after this is posted) I’ll just make note of one or two areas I had a problem with. Any more you all want to add to this…feel free to do so.
One big concern I had with was the comparison of Superman as Jesus (which is pretty obvious) and, more specifically, Superman’s comparison to nemesis Lex Luthor. Now in the film they do mention that the name “Lex” is Latin for law. And since Superman is against Lex, he is against law…much like the anti-Christ. To me I think this is just a tad bit at grasping for straws or better still putting together a puzzle by redoing the original pieces in order to show a full and distorted picture of the original design in order to make that point. 

Yeah I said that. And I know I might be blasted for saying it, but let’s face it, this isn’t the first time “some” Christians have conveniently taken certain select verses of the Bible (in some cases not even the whole verse) in order to prove a point...and conveniently overlook other parts of those same verses that change the dynamic of what they are thing to initially state or prove. I’ve always been uncomfortable with people that think and act this way, and not show the whole. It’s almost like a half-truth at times. And note, nowadays in today’s Information Age, it is a lot harder to pull stunts like this since now more than ever people have access and the capability to really do the research for themselves. 

So when those that do come with a generalized statement (aka their own opinion) on what’s acceptable and what is not for Christians to see or not see in this post-modern era, they better come with the FULL proof to back it up! Which in the case of the Replacement Gods, some areas like the Superman/Lex/Anti-Christ scenario, though feasible, is still a little suspect, but that’s just my opinion. I just have one question about that. If Superman is in fact a depiction of the Anti-Christ, then what does Lex Luthor represent? Hmm…something to ponder. 

Another area which also to me seems a bit suspect and really hard to swallow, is the comparison of duality of Christ during his time on earth in comparison to Harvey (Two-Face) Dent. I mean, come on, seriously?? The Superman comparison is far more feasible and much more believable than this, and that’s saying a lot! I mean yeah Batman does dress up as the traditional “villain”, that automatically means he’s a bad guy? Are they trying to imply very subtlety that how you look on the outside, determines how people see you as a person? Is that really the best way to approach this to Christians? It’s not like we haven’t been accused of that very notion by the secular crowds before, so we might as well stick along with that tired ol’ uppity Christian stereotype, *SMH*.

Oh and don’t even get me started on the Christ comparison to the Joker. I think I will leave that up to D.A. or someone else to address. That one…well a little too much for me. If they really wanted to do a good comparison to Christianity references in a comic series in a controversial way, they would look no further than the DC Graphic Novel Kingdom Come, which did come out a while ago (1996), sooner than many of the related comics mentioned in this documentary, but still recent enough to be a very valid graphic novel in the DC genre of comics.
Despite that, there’s no mention of it anywhere in it. Really make we wonder where they got their research on these comic titles. Picking on some and blatantly ignoring more obvious choices, some of which would have made more sense to use in their favor. It really makes one think.

Now like I said before, I do understand where the people that created this documentary are coming from. I can see the inherent dangers of certain aspects of comic books, and yes it did give me a lot to think about, and re-assess, especially about Grant Morrison’s work. That said, how is this different from anything else we see or hear of in the world? 

I absolutely understand that we need to be careful of what we expose ourselves to at all times, there’s no question about that. Yet at the same time, we should not limit ourselves to just what we are told, what we should or shouldn’t view or listen to.

There are so many possibilities and sources that can be used to approach or see from a unique perspective on Christianity. I mean there are several articles already here on this blog to prove that very same subject. Besides, just like a friend of mine told me (one I hope will add her two cents to this) “In the end I watch these because I simply want to be entertained”, and yes she’s a Christian as well. 

At any rate, time for some feedback - let’s have at it!

And do consider clicking on "subscribe by email" under the comment field in order to keep up with the conversation!


  1. I'll chime in with my opinion of a thumbs up and a thumbs down with this movie.

    I was flabbergasted by the Tommy Lee Jones' rendition of Two-Face and the lair that had elements of the sanctuary and an image of Jesus with a crown of thorns. No way in the world that's any kind of mistake or coincidence, it's now plainly - and painly! - obvious to me that this is intentional and the idea that Lucifer is using superhero movies to engender sympathy for him and revulsion of Jesus. I see it, I get it, thanks for showing me this.

    However, I totally agree that they took some real liberties and reached/grasped quite a bit, and that's not cool. The bit about Aaron Ekhart's Dent being a lawyer and connecting that to Jesus is off for me, because Dent was the District Attorney, the prosecutor, the "accuser of the brethren" as the Bible calls Lucifer. Jesus, however, as our advocate, is a public defender, defending us FROM Lucifer's accusations.

    The Pengiun was tossed into the river, "like Moses." Sure, but Moses did not therefore plan to kill all the first born.

    What I took from this, however, is that Lucifer is the author of confusion and whether he intentionally intended to just totally screw up all the ideas so people don't know what to think, or the movie makers just didn't do a very good job (since they likely aren't real Bible students to begin with), it leaves viewers confused.

    Having said that, I'm now going to actually watch Thor with keener eyes thanks to the eyesalve The Replacement Gods has provided.

    The best take-away for me from The Replacement Gods is that Lucifer is laying a foundation to "be transformed into an angel of light" as the Bible says, and lead an army of sympathizers against God who is being depicted as the bad guy in the great controversy.

    The Replacement Gods isn't perfect, but it's pretty good and I appreciate what value they did provide. More to come (the Joker, Dark Knight, Superman/ubermensch...lots to examine).

  2. D.A. Thanks for the reply!

    I take it from your post end, that you will contiune your breakdown of this doucumentry.. I;ll be looking forward to it.
    That reminds me I should let you read my copy of "Kingdom Come" to show you that this graphic novel could have easliy have been used in this documentry, and far more effectively as well, yet for some unknown reason it really makes me think where did they get all their rescarch on the comic side of documentry and overlook such a obvious choice of material? And worse use other areas that are so unlikely and really do very little to prove the points they are trying to make...

  3. I should briefly mention that, while watching Thor and The Avengers in light of The Replacement Gods, it's now impossible to miss what so many seem to be missing. Search online discussions about these movies and no one is talking about the "attack on Jesus" or the "sympathy for the devil" themes being developed as portrayed in these plots. It's quite remarkable.

    Another thing is this entire Marvel Comics enterprise. The Avengers brings together four superheros - Hulk, Thor, Iron Man and Captain America - each of whom have "standalone" movies of their own AND several of which have sequels (Iron Man already has two with a third on the way; Thor has one with 2 coming out soon...) And the Avengers movie itself will have at least one more installment. A lot of money is going into the production of these movies, and not only will these movies make a lot of money for its producers, but a lot of people will see them, and internalize the themes.

  4. Granted I hear what you're getting at, and I agree with alot of the asspects of Thor/Loki and Odin to an extent do have a questionable vibe about it that is very anti-christian. At the same time compared to alot of DC themes, I feel they tend to take that same bibical/anti-christian areas alot more and in greater asspects. It always has..espically compared to Marvel..I should show you some of the works I have from DC and you can see for yourself..

    1. [note: M. Wanderer's comment above was in response to a question I texted to him, whether DC (Superman/ubermensch, Dark Knight and all the villains...) or Marvel (Thor/Loki, Hulk...) is the more "anti-Christ". Thus did he respond above.]

  5. Having read blog I would like to offer a counterpoint to the Smallville reference.
    I see the mark Darkseid as the mark of the Devil and Superman is helping the the people remove the mark themselves.

    1. Hey Sam, thanks for the conversation! I agree with you that it's possible to interpret these shows and movies differently than the story the producers appear to be trying to tell. As I previously alluded, the Joker as portrayed in The Dark Knight was a much better illustration of Lucifer than of Jesus, so if they're trying to cast Jesus as the bad guy, I think they did a pretty bad job of it (the Loki character in Thor? Now that's a different story, which we will no doubt get into in due time).

      I have never watched an episode of Smallville, so it's quite possible the excerpts that The Replacement Gods picked out may leave us without a wider (and more proper?) context in which to understand their imaging of the Superman character.

      I'm glad you shared your comment, it just goes to show that, whatever the case may be, we need to be more aware of what's being pushed out to the masses. In Revelation, Jesus said he wished we'd buy eyesalve, so that we could see what's going on. The Replacement Gods has been very helpful for me personally, and this discussion with help from and thanks to comments like yours hopefully will help others see a little more clearly "wha' gwaan" out there.

    2. Greetings Sam. Nice of you to to give your opinion on this rather complicated subject.
      I can see your counterpoint as feesable, and considering how "ifish" other areas of this documentry is, its also possible that what you're suggesting is sound. That said, I still think the the whole Nietzsche areas of the show Smallville do seem a tad too suspect, going with his philosophy and all. Because of this, for me it's difficult for me to see Smallville in the same light. Then again thats just my opinion. But you do make a good counterpoint. Defenitly something to think about..

  6. Sam Here again
    After watching the film I have come to a few conclusions.

    It seems the documentary is very slanted towards/built around a certain denomination.
    I am an Orthodox christian over 40 and active in my church. While I have heard of the Mark of Satan/the beast, I have never ever heard of the Mark of God. This documentary is the first I have heard of it.

    Secondly this documentary plays hard and fast with elements of comics universe. It leads me to beleive that the producers know nothing about comics and had to pick and choose what they could find to support the conclusion that they had decided on before filming. Where to begin.

    Lets start with Batman: The producers totally missed the point with him. Yes according to Dennis O'Neil he looks like a demon. Thats the point. The costume is supposed to terrify evil doers. Its hard to do so wile dressed in bright colours and whats more frightening than a demon.

    Then we have the Joker Issue with the Dark Knight. I dont think the Jokers arms were stretched out like a cross. He was hanging upside down but it looked likes his arms were flailing or at his side. If they were is was like a cross then it was briefly as his arms move around I need to find my copy of film and watch it again.

    Then we has Batman 666. The producers obviously do not know anything about continuity or they would have know this was an "Imaginary Story" so to speak taking place in future where Batman is Danian Wayne so no realy connection to todays continuity. To many issues with their depiction of Batman across all mediums.

    Looking towards Superman
    Übermensch (German for "Overman, Overhuman, Above-Human, Superman, Super-human")There is no overall consensus regarding the precise meaning of the Übermensch, So while it could be Superman their is no definete connection.

    The first translation of Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra into English was by Alexander Tille. Tille translated Übermensch as Beyond-Man. But in his translation, published in 1909, Thomas Common rendered Übermensch as "Superman"; Common was anticipated in this by George Bernard Shaw, who had done the same in his 1903 stage play Man and Superman. this translation disputes in the 1950s. Its near or total failure to capture the nuance of the German word über, and second, a rationale which Fredric Wertham railed against even more vehemently in Seduction of the Innocent. His preference was to translate Übermensch as "overman." Scholars continue to employ both terms, some simply opting to reproduce the German word.

    While the term Übermensch, was initially coined by Nietzsche and translated by Shaw as Superman, it's unlikely Nietzsche inspired Siegel and Shuster both Jewish. Siegel picked up the term from other science fiction writers who had used it. In many ways Superman and the Übermensch are polar opposites.

    Nietzsche envisioned the Übermensch as a man who had transcended the limitations of society, religion, and conventional morality while still being fundamentally human. Superman, although an alien gifted with incredible powers, chooses to honor human moral codes and social mores.
    Nietzsche envisioned the perfect man as being beyond moral codes; Siegel and Shuster envisioned the perfect man as holding himself to a higher standard of adherence to them.

    The producers also show they have little undertanding of Superman's powers. He is a solar Battery. He does not worship the sun. He needs the vitamin D from the Sun more than the average human for without it he dies.

    I will adress the Movie and TV Issues in a later posting.

    1. Hey Sam here again :-)

      Looking forward to your address of the movie and TV issues.

      Yep, you are not alone in having hesitations about the apparent lack of rigour in The Replacement Gods' treatment of their ideas. Whether "reaching" or "grasping" or "playing fast and loose" we'd do disservice to review this movie with "Christian blinders on" and I appreciate your sharing your insights to help us make sense of the degree of merit, if any, in this movie.

      I've a few thoughts in response to your comments.

      I think it is quite likely that Nietzsche inspired Jews Siegel and Shuster, on both linguistic and religious fronts. Linguistically, there is much German influence in what we know as "Yiddish." I work with Jewish people and even today the term "mensch" is embraced to mean "a good guy, a stand-up man of character and integrity." It was popularized, for example, in Billy Wilder's movie "The Apartment."

      Religiously, (although this is an anachronism since they developed Superman before the extent of the Nazi horrors would come to light) the Holocaust had a profound effect on Jewish thought, and was a watershed moment in their history when many of them finally asked "how could any kind of good God allow these atrocities to happen to us?" Rejection of any expression of this God, especially by Christians who blame Jews for the death of Jesus, could easily extrapolate into the search for some good guy to rescue us from the tyranny and oppression of organized religion that can be blamed for a lot of human misery (see Thor 2011!)

      And, with respect to the mark of the beast/sign of God, I chuckled at both the depiction as well as your thoughts on it. As a Seventh-day Adventist, I generally understand the mark of the beast to be a counter against the sign/seal of God, which I understand to be the seventh-day sabbath.

      For those Christians who observe Sunday as their day of rest, this idea is not readily apparent to them, but the movie makers seemed to know there must be something, so they grabbed something - the Omega sign.

      When you say "I've never heard of this sign of God thing before", I've got to say that the use of the Omega sign was just as new to me!

      One more thought on ubermensch. In Captain America, Red Skull said something chilling. "We've moved on beyond the human race." We know the Nazis were into all kinds of unspeakable human genetic engineering (one of the members of Abba was born out of one of their programs), but there were all kinds of other things going on we don't know fully about (the Captain America super-soldier vs. the German superior Aryan race...yikes). Point here is, trying to make a man or men or humans to be better and therefore never need a saviour is the idea being bandied about....and all of it is essentially part of the "anti-Christ" concern.

      How it all ties together is the challenging part. That it is full of confusion is consistent with Lucifer.

      Looking forward to continued conversation!

    2. Sam! I had a feeling it might have been my good friend from Seneca doing these postings! Guess those Facebook links are finally paying off! Great to have you join us here.

      You make alot of good points...I too think that the producers of this doucumentry are only basing their idealogies on what they know of through the Bible, and the very limited knowledge they show with several characters mentioned on the comic side of things. I also noticed the tendeancy of picking out only certian key issues of some charaters and using some parts of verses in the Bible..yet not other aspects of that same chapter. It seems they had simply drawn their own conclusions, and made their own decree on what points they wanted to make without doing enough rescarch on the comic characters or storylines of whom they were critquing.

      Granted when you factor in the main storylines with the alternate ones, the non-cannon stories with the cannon ones, it does become confusing, I still think these producers could have done their rescarch a bit, alot better. And not to rehash another statement I made, but it really confounds me that they would put so much emphasis on some parts of these storylines and ingnore more obvious choices.. (ie Kingdom Come)to make their points more valid. This to me shows, not only a very biased approach to this subject (which isnt too suprising), but also poor rescarch on this subject in general, which in this information age, is pretty much unexcuseable.

      Hmm I might be a tad to harsh perhaps, but it really irks me how quickly some can draw their own conculsions on genres or areas of enterianment and be so wrong in so many areas. Like a friend once told me not long ago, "In the end I simply like comics for the sake of being entertianed, nothing more.." Just hope this doesnt make me one of the "misguided ones" that more rigid christians tend to make with genres that are just a tad out of their comfort zone or understanding or interests..

  7. As for the Films and TV The producers are stretching it. It seems that they have no concept of the fact that the different formats have different continuities/rules. The producers of the film seem to think that everything shares same universe. The rules in one do not benefit the other.

    The other thing I found interesting was they speng long time talking about religeons that predated christianity and how they were against Christ. How can they be against Christ when they had no knowledge of him. Specious (SP) reasoning at its best.

    The Moore and Morisson bits were very intersting. I allways thought Morissons writing was off the wall. Now I know why.

    The producers seemed determined to push the Comics are evil agenda similar to Fredrich Wertham. It would have been interesting to see their view on characters who are religeous in comics. Nightcrawler studied for the Priesthood. Kitty Pryde was a practicin Jew.
    I wonder how they would have looked at Spider-man. His credo with Great power comes great Responsibility seems very Christian to me. And then we have Captain America.

    Yes comics can be used to push a message, but the message can be used for good, a point the producers ignore. Interesting topic but poor handling and execution.

    1. First, sorry for the delay in clicking "publish" on this comment, should have happened long ago.

      The concept of being against Christ before there was Christianity can make sense if we understand that the source of the anti-Christ thrust is Lucifer who naturally has known "the Son" since the beginning. What is manifest at the humanly-visible surface is just the tip of the iceberg, the under-girdings of which are from a spiritual time-space dimension distinct from our human sphere. Not sure if The Replacement Gods did justice to getting this across, though, so you might be right that this was poorly treated.

      Totally agree with your conclusion - there's plenty from the Comic universes that can illustrate good uplifting messages, and Captain America is a great example. It's not possible...or, at least, not evident...that every Marvel or DC comic is going to support these anti-Christ sentiments. Some of them have parts that do champion Christ, virtue, nobility of character and other good stuff. Again, before seeing the Replacement Gods, I saw The Dark Knight as a cool depiction of Christ and the Joker as a representation of Lucifer, only to see TRG and find out that apparently it was intended to be the opposite.

      In some respects, beauty may still be in the eye of the beholder, beyond what the producers intended but may not have successfully portrayed or conveyed.

  8. Hi Guys,

    I don't know if we can call this subject controversial if it goes largely unmentioned. Perhaps the film above makes some controversial statements, but I don't know that the subject in general is controversial. Perhaps it should be!

    At any rate, it is far too easy to critique the film. They make some substantive points, but take too many liberties in their comparisons. I didn't watch the last 15 minutes because I didn't feel like they were adding anything to their case that was worth considering. If the TV series Smallville tried to portray Superman as Nietzsche's Ubermensche, how ill-advised that was! Take some of these lines, for instance:

    "Man is a rope between beast and overman and must be overcome. The way across is dangerous, but it must not be abandoned for otherworldly hopes. Zarathustra urges the people to remain faithful to this world and this life, and to feel contempt for their all-too-human happiness, reason, virtue, justice, and pity. All this will prepare the way for the overman, who will be the meaning of the earth."

    The only way to get to the overman is by putting aside some of the things that are at the heart of Superman. A terrible analogy for Superman, but perhaps the romanticized view of Nietzsche causes people to see something else here.

    I think the more interesting point to talk about here is that people are using comic books, and fantasy/sci-fi literature and movies to fill the void left by Biblical illiteracy. These stories have become their mythology, and from it they draw their morality, and their direction and purpose in life. Last Ottawa Comiccon, William Shatner said he noticed this: that the con-goers were united by a shared mythology.

    I think it's true. The human mind learns mostly through example, and this applies to learning morality as well. Our views on good and evil derive from the stories that have exemplified how things ought to, or ought not to be. Jesus taught in parables partially for this reason; He would tell stories that convey a message rather than giving straight truth propositions. Our popular arts are doing the same thing, only they are giving a secularized message which is not always consistent or doesn't have ultimate meaning at its core. The problem is, you can still build your morality based off of something that is inconsistent and without ultimate foundation. We see this all the time in how people suit their moralities to their own preferences.

    So on that point, I would not be surprised that the devil uses the popular arts to influence culture and to lead it in a direction that will cause it to find the Truths of God peculiar or alien. Perhaps some human agents are more active in this than others, but I don't see it as much of a human conspiracy as a spiritual one. For some reason, we've largely given this battlefield up to the enemy by not being involved in it ourselves. Perhaps, to some extent, we've bought into its message also?

    It's quite possible that we should be more bothered by the contents of the popular arts if we were really on-fire for God, but either way it is a mission field that requires a Christian voice.

    My regards.

    1. Hey Lancer, a pleasure to read you as always, thanks for chiming in.

      I really appreciate your "more interesting point" with respect to the void of Biblical illiteracy. Today's increasingly secular society simply does not have familiarity with the stories and narratives of the Bible that we Christians take for granted that "everybody knows." As such, people don't have the ability to look at these movies and see the underlying sub-texts and allegories, they just don't know there's a story behind the story.

      It's mind-bending to me that, as I skim through the discussions for Thor on IMDB that the idea of Thor as Lucifer and Loki as Jesus is essentially non-existent when, during watching the movie (Thor as well as The Avengers) it was bashing the viewers over the head with it.

      In this respect, The Replacement Gods has some value, introducing people to ideas they otherwise might not have known, simply because "Bible" isn't taught as widely as it once was.

      And, yes, it is indeed a "spiritual conspiracy" as you call it, for we read that "we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, the rulers of the darkness of this world, and spiritual wickedness in high places."

  9. Hmmm...since this is an area, that some (though not all) of us are still familiarizing ourselves with, I propose those of us that are not as famulur with the superhero genre, that we check out the source of this archeype and get to the horse's mouth of to speak. I'm suggesting we all go on a outing to a comic store or event of sorts, and see it for ourselves. Though I suspect many of you have done so already. I already have a couple of friends (two of which that have posted here before, that are in..what say you all?

  10. And so, Batman vs. Superman has been released. Interested to see if/how it speaks to this conversation.


What do you think?!