home
RSS
June 14th, 2013
04:05 PM ET

Superman: Flying to a church near you

By Eric Marrapodi, Co-Editor CNN Belief Blog

Baltimore, Maryland (CNN) - As the new Superman movie takes flight this weekend, filmmakers are hoping the Man of Steel lands not only in theaters, but also in pulpits.

Warner Bros. Studios is aggressively marketing "Man of Steel" to Christian pastors, inviting them to early screenings, creating Father’s Day discussion guides and producing special film trailers that focus on the faith-friendly angles of the movie.

The movie studio even asked a theologian to provide sermon notes for pastors who want to preach about Superman on Sunday. Titled “Jesus: The Original Superhero,” the notes run nine pages.

“How might the story of Superman awaken our passion for the greatest hero who ever lived and died and rose again?” the sermon notes ask.

(Disclaimer: CNN, like Warner Bros., is owned by Time Warner.)

Similar campaigns to corral the country's large number of Christians into the movie theater have been used for "Les Miserables," "Soul Surfer" and "The Blind Side," all of which had at least some faith angle.

Baltimore pastor Quentin Scott is among dozens of ministers who received an e-mail invitation from Grace Hill Media, a Hollywood-based Christian marketing firm, to an early screening of “Man of Steel.”

“There was an actual push to say `We’re putting out something that speaks to your group,' ” said Scott, one of the pastors of Shiloh Christian Community Church in Baltimore.

At first, Scott said, he didn’t buy the religious pitch. Then he decided to attend a free midweek screening in Baltimore.

“When I sat and listened to the movie I actually saw it was the story of Christ, and the love of God was weaved into the story," said the pastor.

"It was something I was very excited about that with the consultation of our senior pastor, we could use in our congregation.”

CNN Entertainment: 'Man of Steel' director Zack Snyder on Superman's Christ-like parallels

Grace Hill’s sermon notes are specially designed for churches like Shiloh that integrate multimedia into their services.

“Let’s take a look at the trailer for `Man of Steel,’” the notes suggest after briefly introducing the movie’s history and themes.

The man behind the notes, Pepperdine University professor Craig Detweiler, has prepared similar material for films like 2009’s "The Blind Side" and "The Book of Eli" from 2010.

The spiritual themes in “Man of Steel” are abundant, Detweiler said, and his notes enable Christians to thoughtfully engage with pop culture instead of shunning it.

“All too often, religious communities have been defined by what they're against. With a movie like `Man of Steel,’ this is a chance to celebrate a movie that affirms faith, sacrifice and service,” Detweiler said.

It will be hard for even casual Christians to miss the messianic metaphors in "Man of Steel.”

The movie focuses on the origins of Superman, who was sent from the planet Krypton as an infant to save his species.

He is raised by surrogate parents who help him grapple with his special powers, even though they don’t fully understand the source of his extraordinary abilities.

When he turns 33, Superman must willingly sacrifice himself to save the human race.

Sound familiar?

If that’s not enough, as a boy Clark Kent is shown wrestling with his superpowers, and asks his earthly dad, Jonathan Kent, “Did God do this to me?”

“Somewhere out there you have another father and he sent you here for a reason,” says Jonathan Kent.

Even the visuals hammer home the messianic motifs.

During a fight with his archenemy, General Zod, Superman plunges down to Earth, his arms outstretched as if he were being crucified. Of course, he rises again.

Detweiler writes in the sermon notes, “What Jesus and Superman both give us, through their `hero’ actions but also their `human’ actions – is hope.”

“I think it’s a very good thing that Hollywood is paying attention to the Christian marketplace,” said Ted Baehr, who runs Movieguide, a website that reviews family friendly films from a Christian perspective.

“Where it gets sticky is when they try to manipulate the market and when Christians try to manipulate Hollywood. But here I think we have the right balance.”

But other Christians are heaving a supersized sigh at the movie marketing.

"Any pastor who thinks using `Man of Steel Ministry Resources' is a good Sunday morning strategy must have no concept of how high the stakes are, or very little confidence in the power of God’s word and God’s spirit," writes P.J. Wenzel, a deacon and Sunday School teacher at Dublin Baptist Church in Ohio.

"As they entertain their congregants with material pumped out from Hollywood’s sewers, lives are kept in bondage, and people’s souls are neglected," according to Wenzel, who said he was e-mailed information about the movie.

Scott, the Baltimore pastor, said he knows that Warner Bros. Studios has a financial incentive in pushing the film to pastors.

But he said that’s fine with him. “They’re using us but in fact we’re using them,” he said.

His church won't show clips from the movie this weekend because it had already planned out its service. But he plans to use them later, during meetings with the church’s men’s group.

“If you give me another opportunity to talk to someone about Jesus Christ, and I can do that because of your movie, that’s a win for me, because it is about spreading the Gospel.”

CNN's Erin McPike contributed to this report.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Belief • Celebrity • Christianity • Church • Entertainment • Media • Movies

soundoff (6,545 Responses)
  1. Adam

    If everyone wants to see something hilarious, go back a page and look at RichardRussells response to my Jim Jones comment. It's priceless.

    I love owning liberal atheists.

    June 16, 2013 at 1:20 am |
    • Superman

      You are so cool

      June 16, 2013 at 1:22 am |
    • jboom

      its easy to do when they aren't controlling the microphone or editorial content – i.e. drive by media!

      June 16, 2013 at 1:24 am |
    • Doobs

      Your idea of "owning" someone is awful weak.

      June 17, 2013 at 12:21 am |
    • Observer

      Adam,

      Speaking of owning people, do you support slavery just like the Bible does?

      June 17, 2013 at 12:23 am |
  2. Deez

    I like the part where Superman sends everyone to hell for working on Sunday.

    June 16, 2013 at 1:19 am |
    • Superman

      I like the part where Superman doesn't hate gay people and kill children on a daily basis.

      June 16, 2013 at 1:25 am |
    • Truth

      It's SATURDAY! not SUNDAY dolt.

      June 16, 2013 at 1:25 am |
  3. Deez

    I like the part where Superman sends everyone to hell for not believing he exists.

    June 16, 2013 at 1:18 am |
  4. JC

    What a joke. The studios will do ANYTHING to get in the good graces of ANYONE in order to get to your bank account. What a bunch of wacko's. Superman has more in common with Godzilla by the amount of carnage the movie portrayed. Give me a break.

    June 16, 2013 at 1:16 am |
  5. teedofftaxpayer

    Now can't even watch a good movie without being told about religion. Guess I'll spend my money elsewhere.

    June 16, 2013 at 1:16 am |
  6. clinky

    If you feel the need to sugar coat or supersize your material, then either it didn't work to begin with or you've got the wrong handle on it. The Jesus story has convinced many millions of people for hundreds of years without embellishment, and whether you agree with it or not, at least the story has an appeal all its own. For that reason, Christians might be better off sticking to the unadorned original that's been tried and proven to reach audiences. It's hard to improve on the classics, anyway. Tales that are thousands of years old and still told have endured for a very good reason, because they arrive at the right mix of sincerity and awe that respects peoples' critical reception and inspires their emotions.

    June 16, 2013 at 1:15 am |
    • Superman

      Yeah I'm sure the whole walking on water and healing blind people wasn't embellished at all

      June 16, 2013 at 1:28 am |
    • LiveFromATX

      You do know there's nothing original or "classic" about the story of jesus, right? Been told before, multiple times.

      June 16, 2013 at 1:38 am |
  7. SNAPPA

    Oh please, give me a break this crap needs to stop.

    June 16, 2013 at 1:14 am |
  8. Billy B

    This is the stupidist article ever written by CNN.
    Superman is a comic book hero and should not be compared to Jesus,
    I saw the movie and consider myself very loyal to my belief.
    Except the fiction movie for what it is and stop looking for some underlying fake belief!
    Superman is entertainment, religion is not.

    June 16, 2013 at 1:13 am |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      It's all fictional

      June 16, 2013 at 1:16 am |
    • Truth

      Jesus is a fiction story also silly. You have no proof jesus is real. Atleast superman actually shows people he's real in that story...

      June 16, 2013 at 1:17 am |
    • Superman

      What's wrong with comparing fictional characters? It's fun.

      Could you imagine Superman Jesus vs Goku Stone Cold Steve Austin? Awesomeness

      June 16, 2013 at 1:18 am |
    • Duque Duke

      CNN going against anything that shows a little bit of sympathy for the Christian religion. In this case Superman the movie. Just because Christian religion doesnt agree with gay marriage, doesn't mean that Superman is a bad movie. There is freedom of religion in this country, and also freedom of opinion, but I have to remind CNN that they claim themselves as a news organization, not as an Anti-Judeo-Christian ideologic organization, so stop your ill-intentionated manipulation of the information. And yes I loved the movie. If CNN and their editors feel offended because there are excerpts from this movie that resembles in some way Jesus pathway, then deal with it. This shows how intolerant has CNN become against anybody that goes against their agenda.

      June 16, 2013 at 1:21 am |
    • mendacitysux

      Austin 3:16!!!

      June 16, 2013 at 1:26 am |
  9. havanas

    This has got to be the dumbest news story ever!

    June 16, 2013 at 1:12 am |
    • Keel Hauler

      Yes, it is. Now Richard (or is it "Dick"?) is going to ask you why you're here commenting about it then, aren't you?

      June 16, 2013 at 1:14 am |
  10. Prof

    CNN, it does not seem this site is secure. Is there a moderator reading this and if so is this an anonymous blog? There seems to be some privacy issues here. I've been posting here a long time and don't need someone I may have argued with in the past looking up my personal information. Please explain your privacy statement.

    June 16, 2013 at 1:11 am |
    • LinCA

      @Prof

      The email address, IP address and physical location of each commenter, along with their posts are for sale through CNN Data Wholesale, Inc.

      You may contact the sales department at: sales@cnndatawholesale.com

      June 16, 2013 at 1:21 am |
    • R.M. Goodswell

      No worries man... if somebody is THAT mad and vindictive because of a blog...chances are they have one hell of a lot of people on their list ahead of you.......that is IF they don't have a aneurism first.

      June 16, 2013 at 1:46 am |
  11. Adam

    Let me tell you guys a little bit about liberal/atheist "logic", if that's what you will call it....

    I was watching Duck Dynasty one night in my room when my roommate came by telling me how crappy the show was. He spouted the usual liberal/atheist crap "they glorify guns", "it's real bad they are so staunchly Christian","it's a backwards show", etc. etc. He droned for about ten minutes then left.

    I kid you not, this kid's favorite show...Jersey Shore! ahhaaha. Needless to say we laugh a lot at his expense.

    June 16, 2013 at 1:11 am |
    • Attack of the 50 Foot Magical Underwear

      You're a fukktard

      June 16, 2013 at 1:15 am |
    • EvinAR

      How about this... you're both idiots? That's certainly the most likely possibility. It's probably why you're roommates together. ; )

      My favorite show? I don't watch TV, because TV makes you stupid. I read books.

      June 16, 2013 at 1:17 am |
    • Adam

      Why, it just so happens I also read a fair amount good sir. Literacy is a good thing.

      June 16, 2013 at 1:19 am |
    • Superman

      What kind of weird ass loner loser doesn't watch TV?

      June 16, 2013 at 1:21 am |
    • jboom

      But what is , Evan, that makes you guys so short tempered, and so hostile, and so insecure?

      June 16, 2013 at 1:21 am |
    • jboom

      and sarcastic, angry, edgy, arrogant?

      June 16, 2013 at 1:22 am |
  12. Benlinus

    I suppose so if Jesus kills his tormentors at the end of the story instead of dieing on the cross.

    June 16, 2013 at 1:10 am |
    • EvinAR

      SPOILERS!!! SHHHH!!!

      Most people haven't read the Bible yet...

      June 16, 2013 at 1:21 am |
    • EvinAR

      Also, spelled 'dying'.

      June 16, 2013 at 1:22 am |
  13. jboom

    "In actual SETI research, scientists are looking for more subtle indicators of intelligence, namely, unnaturally modulated and focused radio signals.12 Either way, SETI does presume that the presence of a complex and specified pattern would provide grounds for suspecting the existence of an intelligence. Moreover, SETI seeks precisely to establish the activity of an intelligent cause in a remote place and from a remote time in which intelligence is currently unknown. If scientific methods can—in principle, at least—detect the presence of an extraterrestrial (and nonhuman) intelligence in a faraway galaxy, why can’t methods of design detection be used to establish the activity of nonhuman intelligence in the remote past as the cause of the specified complexity in the cell?"

    Meyer, Stephen C. (2009-06-06). Signature in the Cell (Kindle Locations 6319-6324). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

    He then goes on to show example. This is not your father's Oldsmobile – er, not your father's creation science.

    June 16, 2013 at 1:08 am |
    • Professor

      specious, at best.

      like, where did the first autocatalytic reaction without intelligent intervention began?

      *crickets*

      June 16, 2013 at 1:22 am |
    • HotAirAce

      This "scientist" is a director of the Discovery Institute, so is very likely to be biased towards ID which the US courts have determined is nothing but creationism from The Bablble. That being said, I'll look for reviews by the scientific community before laughing too hard. . .

      June 16, 2013 at 1:26 am |
    • jboom

      stick to the subject

      June 16, 2013 at 1:28 am |
    • jboom

      Do you believe everything you read in the media.

      By the same criterion, the courts would have to call SETI research non-scientific.

      Nobody reads the books anymore. Everybody reads the reviews!

      June 16, 2013 at 1:32 am |
    • Professor

      answer to "where did life began without intelligent intervention begin?"

      anywhere where there are chemicals and energy to start autocatalytic reactions.

      in other words, trillions of places in the universe.

      look for a sea vent near you!

      June 16, 2013 at 1:34 am |
    • jboom

      HotAir, are you familiar with the story of John Harris and the search for longitude?
      Same thing today regarding ID. ID is not same as god of the gaps or of creation science.
      You guys ask for evidence and then when its given you cite the courts?
      The judge in the Dover case took 90% of his opinion from an ACLU lawyer. Bias abounds.

      Evolutionists are becoming creationists. As they do, they are labeled, fired, reassigned. Is it possible its akin to the Grand Inquisition.

      Read their material!

      Their methods are: based on empirical evidence, established scientific methods, and are testable. He spends a full chapter addressing these concerns. But only Christians will read him because anything suggesting evidence is automatically deemed not appropriate for scientific inquiry.

      Its liberals and conservatives. The divide grows deeper. Search for honest truth is lost in the midst of idealogy.

      June 16, 2013 at 1:42 am |
    • jboom

      Professor, then you too have faith that some day, some day, science will be able to explain how the first cell acquired the irreducibly, complex specified sequence found in DNA. The sequence that is essentially an information signal.

      Just try reading from an ID proponents theemselves rather than other atheists reviews of them.

      June 16, 2013 at 1:46 am |
    • jboom

      DNA ... the same information signal type that can be analyzed with same techniques used by the well established and respected SETI project. Why is it ok for SETI but not ok for testing for evidence of ID in creation?

      Could it be ideological bias? Unconcious bias? Intentional?

      I would like someone to give a refutation of Meyer. The ones I have read are nowhere near a refutation.
      All we hear is, "so and so said it was not science".

      Man o man. Its the emporer with no clothes!

      Goodnight y'all

      June 16, 2013 at 1:50 am |
    • HotAirAce

      No, I am not aware of John Harris, I am familiar with John Harrison's work. . .

      Th two cases are not th same. I don't recall Harrison claiming "god did it." I believe that the Discovery Inst is bogus by definition so will not spend money that will end up supporting their interests. I will follow up on pro and con reviews and form my own opinion. So far, it is not looking good for your man – more cons than pro but I haven't read the opinions of all the scientists Meyers claim supports his views.

      June 16, 2013 at 1:53 am |
    • jboom

      I had mistakenly thought you were serious, HotAir.

      June 16, 2013 at 2:10 am |
    • HotAirAce

      I won't spend money on religious claptrap, but it turns out that Meyer's' book is available for free (perhaps that indicates its value) download, and I've read a bit, but I must admit the reviews, pro and on, are more interesting, especially the cons from other ID supporters. Anyway, my early take is that Meyer is simply claiming that no other explanation is as good as "some god did it" (without actually using the word god 'cause he wants the book to be seen as science, not religion). Of course, if you don't believe there are any gods and the author doesn't make the case for there being any gods ('cause he wants the book to be seen as science, not religion), the author fails to make his case.

      June 16, 2013 at 3:09 am |
    • redzoa

      @jboom – It's important to differentiate between SETI and ID. SETI strives to distinguish "non-natural" signals from naturally occurring signals; but even if they could reach the conclusion that a given signal is distinguishable from all known naturally occurring signals, they don't adopt the false dichotomy of natural v. intelligent alien life. Rather, the signal becomes a curious question mark; it could be intelligent life or it could be a new class of naturally occurring signal pending further evidence.

      ID on the other hand is a long-winded negative argument from incredulity (i.e. evolution can't explain "x") followed by the false dichotomy of: if evolution can't explain "x", then "god." This is precisely a “god of the gaps” argument. ID offers no actual testable hypotheses because the proposed mechanism is supernatural. Because the proposed mechanism is supernatural, it can explain any and all outcomes, thereby, effectively explaining nothing (it cannot be falsified). It has no predictive value (because one never knows when the “designer” might choose to intervene) and therefore, cannot be validated. Without delving into the particular failings of Dembski’s complex specified information BS, the biggest problem has been effectively conceded in that Dembski’s “design filter” cannot distinguish between “actual design” and “apparent design” by evolution. In other words, because evolution itself is a highly effective “designer” and because the known processes are so efficient, modular, and replicable, there have been no examples which can be reliably placed in the “actual design” class. Furthermore, all of Behe’s examples of irreducible complexity have been shown to be flawed, i.e. there is ample evidence demonstrating components have been “repurposed” from other evolved biological systems. For these reasons (and many more), ID is a non-scientific proposition.

      June 16, 2013 at 3:16 am |
    • redzoa

      Your framing of the question: “How did the first cell acquire the irreducibly complex, complex specified information . . .” betrays a miscomprehension of the current understanding of abiogenesis. I’d suggest reading Szostak and others (particularly Szostak’s work with RNA aptamers and the subsequent work in this field).

      June 16, 2013 at 3:20 am |
    • redzoa

      Regarding your reference to “Expelled,” the fact that Behe, Minnich, and many other ID supporters retain their positions undermines the persecution claims. When academics fail to maintain viable research programs or if they choose to proselytize religious positions rather than teach, they lose their jobs.

      Regarding the Dover decision, to my knowledge, before a judge renders a decision, the parties are invited to provide “findings of fact” and “conclusions of law” to the court. It is not uncommon, particularly when one side has all the facts and all the law in their favor (which was the case in Dover) for a decision to directly copy. This practice is more common when the case involves highly technical subject matter.

      Evolution is a “designer” as demonstrated both in the lab (Lenski’s E. coli) and in the wild (Pod Mrcaru lizards). These and many other examples provide positive evidence for the ability of mutation and selection to generate novel functionality. Again, ID is nothing more than a negative argument of incredulity topped off with a false dichotomy. But on a more basic level, ID is a pseudoscientific defense of apophenia. Its only application is apologetics and this is why ID doesn’t actually produce any directly supportive peer-reviewed research, rather, it focuses on PR materials for an unquestioning and generally scientifically illiterate laity.

      June 16, 2013 at 3:25 am |
    • Science

      iboom..........no divine designer needed.

      Video animation: RNA interference

      http://www.nature.com/nrg/multimedia/rnai/animation/index.html

      June 16, 2013 at 6:16 am |
    • jboom

      Science, I watched your video.
      Its clearly a red herring and completely irrelevant.

      June 17, 2013 at 12:14 am |
    • jboom

      redzoa,
      "SETI strives to distinguish non-natural signals from naturall occurring signals"
      This is red herring. Everythying you said about SETI is true of ID. You have not differentiated between SETI and ID.

      "if evolution cannot explain x, then 'god'"
      Yes, that is a god of the gaps argument.
      However, your statement betrays your lack of understanding of ID.

      Let me ask you a question: Can you conceive of a biological function, mechanism, or object that could not be generated by

      evolution? If so, how could that be detected? This is what ID does. ID goes beyong the 'god of the gaps' argument. ID

      critizes those who use the GOTG argument while denying the efficacy of evolution.

      "Evolution is a desiger"
      I agree with this statement, as would many ID researchers. I think you are lumping ID and creation science together.

      Intelligent Design, in and of itself, does not lead one to deny non-theistic evolution's ability to produce novel and even

      extremely complicated design via mutation and natural selection. The fact that some may make use of ID findings to promote a

      particular religious view should not be a factor in debating the legitimacy of ID.

      "ID is a negative arg with a false dichotomy" ... "pseudoscientific defense of apophenia" ... ... "only application is

      apologetics" ... "it focuses on PR materials for illiterate laity"

      Again, you are arguing against a strawman, not ID.
      I can't tell whether you are engaging in propoganda or if you are just honestly misinformed.

      June 17, 2013 at 12:15 am |
    • jboom

      redzoa,
      "all of Behe’s examples of irreducible complexity have been shown to be flawed, i.e. there is ample evidence demonstrating components have been “repurposed” from other evolved biological systems"

      Evolutionists have responded to Behe's example of the flagellum motor, but only at the propaganda level.
      Repurposing can explain part, but not all of the FM. So the explanation does not succeed.

      This is clearly a case of not following the evidence. Evolutionary theory comes up against a brick wall. And so we say 'in time, evolution will be able to explain the FM". Is that the scientific method. If I turned in a science or lab project like that, my college professors would have been turned it back with a lot of red ink on it.

      June 17, 2013 at 12:19 am |
    • jboom

      redzoa, Zostack is quite expensive at amazon, so I will instead ask my library to get it for me...

      I presume you are suggesting that Zostack presents findings or hypothesis that have arisen in past 3 years that do address the serious questions raised about the difficulties of the specified complexity of DNA sequences in the origin of the first living cell?

      June 17, 2013 at 12:27 am |
    • redzoa

      @jboom – You really didn't add any meat to prior claims, just restated that ID is viable. You didn't address Dembski's design filter problem. Behe's IC examples have been addressed in the scientific literature, i.e. there is no evidence that all of the components sprung together at once. As Judge Jones noted, Behe and Dembski have been forced to circular reasoning and argument by definitional fiat, and they have not provided any viable examples. Contrast this to Lenski's E. coli, the Pod Mrcaru lizards, and countless other examples of evolved novel functionality. Perhaps most importantly, you didn't address the alleged mechanism of ID or how this could be detected. Like your prior anthropocentric universe causation arguments, ID is nothing more than a modern incarnation of the Paley's watchmaker; however, the key point is that the inference of design comes from first, an understanding of the human mechanisms of manufacture. With the watch, or a house, or a jet liner, or Mt. Rushmore, or any of the other more basic analogies ID proponents offer, they invariably overlook that it is the empirical understanding of mechanism of manufacture that gives rise to the reasonable inference of design. It is not reasonable to extrapolate this inference where there is no empirical understanding of mechanism. Worse still, it is not reasonable to extrapolate an inference of design when the alternative empirically validated mechanism has NOT been demonstrated incorrect or incapable. Again, ID is not a positive research effort, it is negative argument based first in incredulity and second in ignorance (i.e. God of the Gaps). Take, for example, one of ID's most prized (because there are so, so few) peer-reviewed publications and how Behe's contrived model stands up to a cursory cross-examination:
      http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/08/03/behe-disproves-irreducible-com-1/

      Regarding a biological system that could not evolve naturally, one example might be a true chimera, i.e. an organism which displays genes and features from two evolutionary distinct lineages. In evolution, we can trace back and find a common ancestor, but (excluding some microbial examples of horizontal gene transfer) we don't see distinct lineages spontaneously/naturally coming back together. In other words, if you find a clearly human gene for alzheimer's in a mouse, you could reasonably infer a genetic modification by actual design. But the key point here is that we empirically understand the mechanisms involved with inserting a transgene and we empirically understand (thanks to evolution) the gene-flow isolation that occurs between higher order taxonomic groups. A true chimera is one example of evidence that would truly undermine evolution. Others are a clearly out of order fossil (rabbit in pre-Cambrian) and the actual observation/recording of a special creation event. An observation of any of these would effectively falsify evolution as currently understood. ID cannot be falsified because as you have already acknowledged, the supernatural mechanism of ID would account for any and all observations, including evolution. You might note that the incredibly few (but highly prized by the DI) ID publications to make it into peer-reviewed journals are models, not "wet-bench" science. Although the DI could be funding bioinformatics studies looking for true chimeras or other examples that would truly undermine evolution, they aren't.

      Lastly, it's Szostak and you can search for freely-available articles/reviews on PubMed or at his homepage:
      http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/

      June 17, 2013 at 2:49 am |
  14. StuporDave

    Put your faith in something. I believe I'll spend my money more wisely believing in Superman.

    June 16, 2013 at 1:08 am |
  15. thedaddy

    Suckers

    June 16, 2013 at 1:06 am |
    • Superman

      Don't call me a lollipop you fudge head!

      June 16, 2013 at 1:13 am |
  16. Soda

    I agree, Thw cape Jesus wore looked a lot like Superman's cape and the ability to shot heat beams from their eyes was unbelievably similar. Hahaha. Idiots. The only thing similar about the two of them, is they're both make believe.

    June 16, 2013 at 1:06 am |
    • John

      You do realize that Jesus really did exist, even atheists believe in his existence just not that he was anything other than a good man...

      June 16, 2013 at 1:16 am |
    • SNAPPA

      Here, here...

      June 16, 2013 at 1:16 am |
    • RichardSRussell

      "You do realize that Jesus really did exist, even atheists believe in his existence ..."

      Far from ALL atheists believe this, I assure you. The evidence for the historicity of Jesus is exceedingly slim and horribly, horribly biased, rewritten, and edited.

      June 16, 2013 at 1:27 am |
    • tallulah13

      Actually not, John, But if lying about what other people think makes you feel better, then you go on right ahead.

      June 17, 2013 at 12:33 am |
  17. Keel Hauler

    Good thing Marvel characters end up in good movies, because this pretty much finishes off any D.C. ones.

    June 16, 2013 at 1:03 am |
    • RichardSRussell

      DUDE! Bite your tongue! The Dark Knight trilogy was an epic.

      June 16, 2013 at 1:05 am |
    • Keel Hauler

      First, do I need to tell you what I think of people who use the word "Dude" to start a sentence? And while yes, the Batman trilogy is orders of magnitude better than the previous incarnations, D.C.has got major damage control to do, while Marvel is knocking out hit after hit...

      June 16, 2013 at 1:09 am |
    • Superman

      Be quite dork

      June 16, 2013 at 1:11 am |
    • Keel Hauler

      That's "quiet" you illiterate pfhuck-stick.

      June 16, 2013 at 1:13 am |
    • R.M. Goodswell

      DC needs to build more than just Batman...

      and Superman? he doesn't count because he has no weaknesses...no matter how tough his enemies are – he discovers new reserves of raw power. ... and hes good -always able to take the moral high ground. all this = boring.

      and they need to do Justice League or L.E.G.I.O.N. w/ Lobo.

      June 16, 2013 at 1:28 am |
    • LinCA

      @Keel Hauler

      You said, "That's "quiet" you illiterate pfhuck-stick."
      And that's "fuck-stick", you ....

      June 16, 2013 at 1:33 am |
  18. Wang bone

    Superman is more believable, I know that.

    June 16, 2013 at 12:59 am |
    • crossbreed

      Dear superman , i pray for wang bone ...amen..

      June 16, 2013 at 1:03 am |
    • Superman

      Prayer denied

      June 16, 2013 at 1:10 am |
  19. deuscapturus

    The movie is a Christian racket?

    June 16, 2013 at 12:58 am |
    • RichardSRussell

      No, like all movies, it's a CAPITALIST racket. They're trying to sell you something they think you're willing to give them money for. Since Christians are desperately looking for affirmation, that's what Warner Bros. is trying to sell them on. But if you aren't actively looking for Christian allusions, you'd hardly even notice them.

      June 16, 2013 at 1:04 am |
  20. chuck

    OMG those Skeerie Christians, this is a terrorist recruiting movie!........................

    June 16, 2013 at 12:57 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.