Written by 
Fans of The Amazing Spider-Man plopped down $10 this week to read the start of The Osborn Identity, which was jam-packed with extra stories (some of them not so good). While your friendly neighborhood blogger is happy to talk about the issue as a whole, one exchange in the main story stuck out for the anti-faith claptrap that writer Dan Slott shoved into Peter Parker’s mouth.
Since this issue takes place after The Clone Conspiracy, Peter Parker goes to check on reporter Betty Brant to see how she’s doing. She mentions seeing a spiritual advisor and possibly bringing Aunt May along since her second husband just passed away, to which the hero replies:
“You’re a reporter. You live for facts. When did you start looking to the spirit world?“
Note that at this point Peter knew nothing about Betty receiving phone calls from the clone of her deceased husband. All he knew as that she wanted to see a spiritual advisor. And his response? A condescending remark that people who deal in “facts” should not be turning to spiritual advisors.
Spider-Man fans who subjected themselves to Jose Molina’s atrocious Amazing Grace will note how he also infused Peter with anti-faith smugness. In 2016, however, the message was that faith in God and science are somehow at odds, which is not true at all (my guess is that Dan Slott and Jose Molina have never even heard of Georges Lemaître, for example, but I digress).
What makes Dan Slott’s decision so weird, as has been stated before, is that it makes even more sense in the Marvel Universe for people to believe in the supernatural because citizens witness it on a regular basis. Peter has literally been to the astral plane, dealt with demons, and knows first-hand that they exist, and yet Dan Slott makes him act like a callous jerk towards a friend who is spiritual.
The absurdity of Peter’s statement is made even more bizarre when, moments earlier, he is seen talking to “Uncle Ben” — a dead man — at his grave. Why would scientists and reporters and superheroes talk to long-dead relatives unless they believed that on a spiritual level their words were being heard?
And why would Peter behave like such a jerk towards Ms. Brant when Amazing Grace ended with a meeting between he and a priest — “Hey, Father. You got a minute?”
Here are some historical “facts” for Dan Slott.
- There was once a man named Jesus who made some pretty “bold” claims (Understatement of All Time Award material, I know.)
- Jesus was crucified — just as he foretold — for those claims.
- Jesus’ enemies were so terrified of Him that they literally entombed his corpse behind a giant rock and used an armed guard to watch over it. (Yes, an armed guard for a dead body.)
- Christ’s own disciples, from a historical perspective, had every reason in the world to say, “Well, I guess it’s over,” after he was executed. False prophets came before him, and all their movements soon died with the individual. But these apostles didn’t turn in the towel. They too were eventually executed for telling all the world that Jesus rose from the dead. They traveled far and wide to tell everyone who would listen that they saw him, that they literally put their hands in his wounds, and that He is exactly who He claimed to be.
I can go on and on (What came before the Big Bang, Dan Slott?), but the point is this: Peter Parker would never behave the way he did in that scene with Ms. Brant because it was a total jerk thing to say. If you think that he would say that — despite hanging on occasion with Doctor Strange … traveling throughout the multi-verse … and generally dealing with the supernatural on a regular basis, then good luck making that case.
If Dan Slott is not a religious man, then that is his prerogative, but he should not turn Peter Parker into a condescending jerk when a story delves into spiritual matters.
With that said, I highly suggest checking out Stillanerd’s review of ASM #25 over at Whatever A Spider Can.
I should also mention that the two of us will be discussing the craft of writing (through an ASM prism) on my YouTube channel on Saturday, March 25. As of now we plan on starting at 3 p.m. EST. Make sure to subscribe and hit YouTube’s little bell icon to receive a notification when we go live.
Douglas Ernst Blog 
Idk how religious you are or not but there’s very little reliable evidence around Jesus and the gospels. There may have been a Jesus that people over hyped and turned into something he wasn’t, or there may have been multiple people that was turned into the Jesus from the gospels. Although if there was a Jesus and the gospels were mostly accurate about his life, I don’t believe he was the son of a god or did he come back to life.
Sidw note: Is Peter religious? I don’t know if this has ever been cannonically established or not.
“Idk how religious you are or not but there’s very little reliable evidence around Jesus and the gospels. There may have been a Jesus that people over hyped and turned into something he wasn’t, or there may have been multiple people that was turned into the Jesus from the gospels. Although if there was a Jesus and the gospels were mostly accurate about his life, I don’t believe he was the son of a god or did he come back to life.”
You’re just wrong. No serious historian doubts that Jesus was a real person who existed and was crucified at Calvary. Those who knew him well were also executed for continuing to tell the world that he rose from the dead and was the one true King. The great thing about free will is that, obviously, you are free to use it as you see fit. You cannot truly love someone unless they willingly and freely choose to enter into that relationship. That’s why God gave you free will.
“Sidw note: Is Peter religious? I don’t know if this has ever been cannonically established or not.”
Yes, this has been established. He isn’t preaching on Sunday, but he has generic Judeo-Christian worldview as it pertains to God.
Alright I’ll take it that you are religious. Even if it’s true that there was a man name Jesus who gathered followers that preached his teachings after he died, that doesn’t mean he was anyone special. Mahommad got followers to preach his teachings, does this mean Islam has credibility? People, especially back then, were easily decieved and often preached things that weren’t true.
“Alright I’ll take it that you are religious. Even if it’s true that there was a man name Jesus who gathered followers that preached his teachings after he died, that doesn’t mean he was anyone special.”
Not only am I religious, but you’ve been reading this blog long enough to know that I am well-read and educated. Your comments indicate that you have not seriously explored Christ from a purely historical or philosophical perspective. If you did, you would not so blithely dismiss him. From a purely philosophical point of view the man was, quite simply, a pure genius. That was one of the many reasons why the authorities had him executed…
You may want to tap out of this conversation if you’re not going to admit that you have not done your homework on the world’s most transformational and influential figure.
There are a lot of religious people who claims to be well educated on the character of Jesus (or any religious figure for that matter) and now follows him religiously, but then you read their books it’s filled of logical fallacies and the occasional stretching lf the truth. I’m not trying to convert you or anything, you could believe in pink unicorns that farts gay gnomes and I really couldn’t care less, I was just simply pointing out that your “Historical Facts” may not be as factual as you claim.
“There are a lot of religious people who claims to be well educated on the character of Jesus (or any religious figure for that matter) and now follows him religiously, but then you read their books it’s filled of logical fallacies and the occasional stretching lf the truth.”
Notice how you’re talking about what random people say about Jesus instead of, you know, actually quoting Jesus. If your argument is that dumb or dishonest people make dumb and dishonest comments about Christ, then we’re in agreement.
“I’m not trying to convert you or anything, you could believe in pink unicorns that farts gay gnomes and I really couldn’t care less, I was just simply pointing out that your ‘Historical Facts’ may not be as factual as you claim.”
Again, you are the one who is wrong. No serious historian denies that Christ lived, that Christ was executed at Calvary, and that his apostles were executed for spreading the Gospels. You can’t deny that because those are all historical facts.
If you choose not to study the historical significance of those facts in a serious way, then that’s on you. I have done serious research, and because I have done so I know that your Slottian condescension about “pink unicorns” is — on a spiritual level — ill advised.
“Notice how you’re talking about what random people say about Jesus instead of, you know, actually quoting Jesus. If your argument is that dumb or dishonest people make dumb and dishonest comments about Christ, then we’re in agreement. ”
Quoting Jesus from…the Bible? If that’s the case then you don’t really have any reliable sources that gives you Jesus’s actual quotes. If the Bible’s the only source than you just have a circular argument. “The gospels are real because Jesus! Jesus is real because the gospels!”
“Again, you are the one who is wrong. No serious historian denies that Christ lived, that Christ was executed at Calvary, and that his apostles were executed for spreading the Gospels. You can’t because those are all historical facts.
If you choose not to study the historical significance of those facts in a serious way, then that’s on you. I have done serious research, and because I have done so I know that your Slottian condescension about “pink unicorns” is — on a spiritual level — ill advised.”
I mean, more or less. Was there a man named Jesus? Was this man executed? Was his followers killed for spreading this man’s message? Maybe! it’s possible! But do I believe this man did miracles, come back to life after a few days, and went back to heaven? Nope! Do we have any evidence to show this actually happened? Nope! We may have a few people who claimed it happened but we also have people claiming that the Angel of Marconi came down and gave that one dude the Book of Mormon (or however that story went) and I doubt you believe in that!
And the unicorn thing was I comedic way to say I really don’t give a shit what you believe in. Not sure how this compares me to Slott though (I believe that’s what you meant by “Slottian”, correct me if I’m wrong)
“Quoting Jesus from…the Bible? If that’s the case then you don’t really have any reliable sources that gives you Jesus’s actual quotes. If the Bible’s the only source than you just have a circular argument. ‘The gospels are real because Jesus! Jesus is real because the gospels!'”
Anyone who reads the Bible — the document written by his own disciples, the people who knew and died spreading the word of his resurrection — and concludes that these are not legit accounts … they’re willingly blind. Like I said, from a purely philosophical level, Christ’s words — in the Bible — are pure genius.
Using your own logic, why should we believe anything that happened before video was invented and we can see it for ourselves. It’s silly.
“Was there a man named Jesus? Was this man executed? Was his followers killed for spreading this man’s message? Maybe! it’s possible! But do I believe this man did miracles, come back to life after a few days, and went back to heaven? Nope!”
Christ’s own followers didn’t believe it either, hence why He allowed them to physically inspect His wounds. They were the original “skeptics” on many levels, which is why it is so telling that they went on to preach the Gospels knowing that to do so would mean that they too would be crucified.
“And the unicorn thing was I comedic way to say I really don’t give a shit what you believe in.”
It’s also the way that atheists use to mock Christians as believing in things that don’t exist. If you wanted to be respectful, then you could have just said, “Believe what you want, but I don’t share your beliefs.”
“Anyone who reads the Bible — the document written by his own disciples, the people who knew and died spreading the word of his resurrection — and concludes that these are not legit accounts … they’re willingly blind. Like I said, from a purely philosophical level, Christ’s words — in the Bible — are pure genius.”
Ok, just because people are willing to die to spread an ideology doesn’t make that ideology true. If that was the case, Mulsim terrorists would give Islam credibility (Spoiler alert: it doesn’t). The earliest gospel written was even made decades after Jesus died, plenty of time for the story to be warped and altered from the truth.
“Using your own logic, why should we believe anything that happened before video was invented and we can see it for ourselves. It’s silly.”
Because cameras don’t lie. If I showed you a recording of Trump saying something that that’s proof that he said it, if I gave you a news article claiming Trump said something than you should be a tad more skeptical since anyone can make fake quote up!
“Christ’s own followers didn’t believe it either, hence why he allowed them to physically inspect his wounds. They were the original ‘skeptics,’ which is why it is so telling that they went on to preach the Gospels knowing that to do so would mean that they too would be crucified.”
Can Jesus appear before me right now and let me inspect those wounds myself? Then I’d be a Christian again instantly! But again, how do we know he was skeptical to begin with? They could’ve added that bit to give credibility to the book. If you had outside sources confirming this than I’d be more liable to believe it but all you’re doing is telling me stories from the Bible I’ve heard before that gives it supposed credibility.
“It’s also the way that atheists use to mock Christians as believing in things that don’t exist. If you wanted to be respectful, then you could have just said, ‘Believe what you want, but I don’t share your beliefs.'”
Don’t atheists tend to go for the Flying Spaghetti Monster thing? I just use gay gnome farting unicorns cause I think it’s funnier and even more ridiculous. And this is the internet, dude, people mock what they find to be idiotic all the time. Maybe don’t take it so personally?
“Ok, just because people are willing to die to spread an ideology doesn’t make that ideology true. If that was the case, Mulsim terrorists would give Islam credibility (Spoiler alert: it doesn’t). The earliest gospel written was even made decades after Jesus died, plenty of time for the story to be warped and altered from the truth.”
Again, you’re not looking at this from a philosophical or historical context. From a historical context, it would have made zero sense for the disciples to continue on — unless Christ actually rose from the dead. And the way that Muslims — hundreds of years later — die for their cause is by conquering others, forced conversion, etc. Christ’s willingness to die on the cross, philosophically, is the total opposite from the teachings of Muhammad. The world always knew “eye for an eye” and “might makes right,” but Christ teaches us to turn the other cheek, forgive, and to love our neighbor — particularly those who despise us.
“Because cameras don’t lie. If I showed you a recording of Trump saying something that that’s proof that he said it, if I gave you a news article claiming Trump said something than you should be a tad more skeptical since anyone can make fake quote up!”
You’re basically acknowledging that we must all use faith to bridge the gap between what we know and what we can never know. Saying that the Bible and other historical artifacts from Christ’s time on earth are essentially meaningless is like saying you’re not sure if Julius Caesar existed because you don’t have video. It’s bizarre.
“Can Jesus appear before me right now and let me inspect those wounds myself? Then I’d be a Christian again instantly!”
So, you’re basically Thomas. Again, Christ’s own disciples were in many ways the original skeptics. Was Christopher Hitchens onto something special? Not really. Thomas literally needed to stick his fingers in Christ’s wounds to believe.
“But again, how do we know he was skeptical to begin with? They could’ve added that bit to give credibility to the book. If you had outside sources confirming this than I’d be more liable to believe it but all you’re doing is telling me stories from the Bible I’ve heard before that gives it supposed credibility.”
And again, there are plenty of historical artifacts proving that all of these men existed, that they knew Christ, and were executed for their beliefs. And you’re perfectly free to not believe the authenticity of their claims. Plenty of men throughout history have claimed to be prophets, but Christ actually claimed to be the Son of God — the Word made flesh. He did it, and he did it with a.) authority, and b.) a philosophy that completely changed the world. And to this day his name is STILL the focus of attention for billions of people. If you want to consider the “democracy of the dead,” then think of how many BILLIONS of people have spent their lives studying Christ. Do you honestly think that’s a coincidence? Do you honestly think that some fraudster could have that many people for thousands of years focused on him? I don’t. But again, feel free to believe that Jesus was merely some dude who pulled a fast one on the entire human race. I believe he was exactly who he claimed to be.
“Don’t atheists tend to go for the Flying Spaghetti Monster thing? I just use gay gnome farting unicorns cause I think it’s funnier and even more ridiculous. And this is the internet, dude, people mock what they find to be idiotic all the time. Maybe don’t take it so personally?”
I’m still talking to you, right? If I took it “personally,” then I wouldn’t be engaging you right now. The “it’s the internet, dude!” excuse is pretty pathetic and embarrassing. I treat my regular readers with respect and dignity because they are real people with real feelings. If you don’t want to extend the same courtesy to me and them, then that’s your call — but don’t expect me to try and have a productive conversation with you going forward. I don’t mock your deeply held beliefs, so I’m not sure why you think it’s appropriate to mock mine because “internet, dude!”
Also, I have done my research on Christianity before I converted out of it. I may or may not have done less research then you but I have done quite a bit of it. Yes Jesus’s teachings as laid down in the gospels have changed the world in a lot of positive ways, but the bible as a whole have done a lot of evil and caused terrible things as well.
“Also, I have done my research on Christianity before I converted out of it. I may or may not have done less research then you but I have done quite a bit of it.”
Which scholar can you recommend for myself or my readers to check out? Tell us who your favorite scholar is and why. Share a passage or two from your favorite book — one that further convinced you to leave the Christian faith. I’ll buy it, read it myself, and perhaps do up a review on the blog.
When I told my parents that I was no longer a Christian they gave me Lee Strobel’s “Case for Christ” and “Case for a Creator” and both were not only terrible but hard to get through because I couldn’t stand Strobel’s writing. Most of my research has been done online rather than just in books.
As for Scholar’s that I could suggest, I’m not going to surprise you with some obscure one that will make me look super smart (which I realize was your intention here) but I could always bring up Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.
“As for Scholar’s that I could suggest, I’m not going to surprise you with some obscure one that will make me look super smart (which I realize was your intention here) but I could always bring up Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.”
I suggest watching the debates between Dinesh D’Souza and Hitchens. They’re on YouTube and quite good.
“I suggest watching the debates between Dinesh D’Souza and Hitchens. They’re on YouTube and quite good.”
Noted! Although you didn’t give your thoughts on Strobel’s books so idk whether you agree with me that they’re bad or disagree and just didn’t want to talk about them…
“Noted! Although you didn’t give your thoughts on Strobel’s books so idk whether you agree with me that they’re bad or disagree and just didn’t want to talk about them.”
I can’t say that I’ve checked him out. My reading list includes guys like Saint Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Merton, Catherine of Siena, Hubert Van Zeller, Hans Urs von Balthasar, St. John of the Cross, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, etc.
I suppose Dinesh D’Souza’s “What’s So Great about Christianity” is not bad if we’re talking about contemporary figures who have actually debated Hitchens.
Forgot to ask, but do you have any you like to recommend to people to read?
“Forgot to ask, but do you have any you like to recommend to people to read?”
If you haven’t familiarized yourself with the arguments put forth by Thomas Aquinas, then that’s a start. The problem with Hitchens and Dawkins is that they act as if God is some sort of thing that exists within the physical universe, like a rock or a cow or a person. That’s not what guys like me are saying. We’re talking about ens infinitum — and Infinite Being that transcends all human conceptions.
If all things in the universe are contingent upon something else, then keep re-winding the “clock.” You must therefore get to that which exists outside all contingencies (i.e., God).
If you want something more laid back and contemporary, then of course C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton are great.
“The problem with Hitchens and Dawkins is that they act as if God is some sort of thing that exists within the physical universe, like a rock or a cow or a person. That’s not what guys like me are saying. We’re talking about ens infinitum — and Infinite Being that transcends all human conceptions. If all things in the universe are contingent upon something else, then keep re-winding the ‘clock.’ You must therefore get to that which exists outside all contingencies (i.e., God).”
You lost me there…can you give me an example? I’ve always found Dawkins quite entertaining and intelligent to listen to, Hitchens is also interesting but I like Dawkins better.
“If you want something more laid back and contemporary, then of course C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton are great.”
C.S.Lewis is brought up a lot in these types of conversations, I should give him a loom at.
“You lost me there…can you give me an example?”
The Big Bang theory states that all matter in the universe — all of it — was compressed into a tiny spec before exploding in a burst of light, right? Well, what came BEFORE the Big Bang? Are you saying that all that matter just came from nothing? Logic and Reason tell you that something cannot come from nothing. So, given that, we know that whatever “ignited” the Big Bang, for lack of a better term, exists outside time and space … and its entire existence is not dependent upon anything else. Our mind simply can not wrap itself around such a being, but we have a better idea of God (The Father) through the teachings of Christ (the Son).
Christ always said the perfect thing, but he said it in a way that was unexpected (I’m paraphrasing Chesterton, I think). He was the master of the paradox, the “both/and” of the Catholic Church. And the story of this God is unlike all the others ever told.
“He was born without a mother in heaven and without a father on earth. He who made the world was born into it. The maker of the sun, born under the sun; molder of the earth, born on the earth; ineffably wise, born a little infant; filling the world, lying in a manager; ruling the stars, nursed by His mother. The mirth of heaven weeps, God becomes man. Divinity, incarnate. Eternity, time; Lord, scourged; Power, bound with ropes; King, crown with thorns. If you were the only person in the world who ever lived and sinned, He would have come down to earth, died and suffered just for you alone. That is how much He loves you.” — Fulton J. Sheen.
Try and imagine what it feels like to be infinitely loved, superduperawesomeguy. Honestly. Close your eyes at night when you’re alone and try and put yourself in the head/heart space where you feel what it’s like to receive infinite love. Now imagine yourself coming face-to-face with the God who loves you infinitely, despite the fact that you liken his existence to unicorns and mock those who are trying to tell you that He is real. What would that encounter be like?
Or not. It’s your choice. Again, if God literally IS love, then he cannot enter into a relationship with you without your consent.
For what it’s worth, the writings of the 1st-century Romano-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus include references to Jesus and the origins of Christianity.
I have always viewed my faith as God working in my life, as the Bible puts it, God’s approach to man, having a very real tangible experience and personal relationship with him on a daily basis. Again as the Bible says, a faith without the works of God made manifest is a dead faith. It’s one of the reasons I walked away from organized religion twenty four years ago.
I could talk for hours of several miracles that personally happened to me, something several doctors and specialists admitted they had never seen a case study like mine and agreed my healing was by divine intervention.
They simply had no answers, especially when every single test I had done, (six in total), came back negative. One specialist wrote, “An amazing and remarkable recovery, completely healed without the aid of drugs, all within a short amount of time”.
On the subject of prayer which I and the Christian Fellowship I attend were all praying, the specialist simply conceded, “Whatever helps, whatever helps”.
I could also talk for hours on the many miracles I have personally witnessed in other people over the years, with the actual medical certificates of the before and after diagnosis.
At the end of the day, people have a freewill choice to either believe and obey the gospel of Jesus Christ, or not.
No other man in the history of the world ever declared themselves the Son of God, performed miracles, healed the sick, raised the dead, endured the false accusations of the religious Jewish court and the Roman court through the most humiliating trials.
No other man endured the painful scourges at the whipping post, taking 40 lashes of a cat-o-nine tails whip.These would tear into the body more and more with each successive lashing, with the leather balls ripping into the skin and the jagged pieces of bone or metal tearing it out. As the flogging progressed, muscles, vital organs, and even the spine could often be seen openly. Huge strips of skin would be hanging from the body.
No other man died the most painful of deaths on the cross for mankind’s sins and rose again, offered forgiveness of sins through the power of the Holy Ghost, no one except the one and only begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ.
The trials of Jesus represent the ultimate mockery of justice. Jesus, the most innocent man in the history of the world, was found guilty of crimes and sentenced to death by crucifixion.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts, Magnetic Eye. We usually stick strictly to Spidey-stuff, so I appreciate this one even more than your usual posts. 🙂
Great blog post, Doug. Thanks again for saving me money by not buying this junk. Makes zero sense, like you said, and it’s ridiculous to make Peter a mouthpiece for your own beliefs. Write the guy the way he’s been established… repeatedly.
Even apart from Christianity, Peter’s snide comment is stupid in terms of the Marvel Universe. Peter has fought demons (remember the ASM series “Inferno”?). He was friends with Professor X. He was taken over by The Other.
@Superduperawesomeguy: You haven’t considered the issue of God, Jesus Christ, and the metaphysical until you’ve read the best Christian writers. You can get cheap copies of Lee Strobel’s “The Case For Christ”, or Josh McDowell’s classic “Evidence That Demands A Verdict”, or anything by Sri Lankan philosopher Dr. Ravi Zacharias (available on Youtube). Dawkins’ and Hitchens’ “proofs” have been destroyed, including by some of their fellow atheists who consider them a disgrace to atheism.
He just said he read that book, and it didn’t do anything for him. I like the book personally.
I don’t think you can ever really ‘reason’ someone into believing in God/Jesus. God isn’t about appealing to someone’s logic– He is above and beyond comprehension. 1 Corinthians 3:20 even says “and again, ‘The Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, That they are useless.'”
God IS Spirit. The reason I believe in Him is because I’ve had a personal encounter with Him that has turned into a relationship– and it corresponds to what the Bible itself says. He is as real to me as a family member is. Denying His existence is like saying my son doesn’t exist. He’s not a concept. I don’t believe in Him because of what someone else told me.
I firmly believe everyone has a giant void in themselves that cannot be filled apart from Jesus. An intellectual pursuit of anything higher than themselves is going to come up short, and it will result in anger, sarcasm, and ultimately despondency.
“I don’t think you can ever really ‘reason’ someone into believing in God/Jesus. God isn’t about appealing to someone’s logic– He is above and beyond comprehension. 1 Corinthians 3:20 even says “and again, ‘The Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, That they are useless.’”
I agree and disagree with you, Eric. Haha. Let me explain. It really all just depends on the person. People come closer to a belief in God through “the good, the beautiful, and the true,” — or some combination of all three. Indeed, at some point in time a man has no choice but to take that leap of faith, but it is definitely possible to conclude that God MUST exist based on logic and reason. The personal relationship is where faith comes in, just like it does with ALL relationships. We need to make ourselves vulnerable, sacrifice our ego, and put our trust in another person to allow love to grow. If a person doesn’t have that, then the relationship will go nowhere.
Amazing Spider-Man #25- or as I like to call it, “How Marvel got the readers to face palm so hard they need facial reconstruction surgery.”
Yeah, Peter’s comment doesn’t make sense on two levels. One, what does “living for facts” have to do with seeking counsel from a Spiritual Advisor for help on a personal issue? And if this is Peter’s view on things, the fact that Betty would want to see a Spiritual Advisor should tell him that this is something serious and not to be dismissed with him defining her entirely by her career- telling her how she lives her life, and then imply that what she wants to do goes against her own character.
Two, I’m sure Betty as well as everyone else in the MU know about Doctor Strange, Ghost Rider and the plethora of other mystical characters operating just in New York alone. When a guy with a flaming skull for a head drives down Broadway on his flaming motorcycle, and the Sanctum Sanctorum is located right in the city, the Spirit World IS a fact.
The scene at the cemetery is the one that really got me mad. I see what they tried to do. Peter says:
“I saw the Stacys again. George… and Gwen. Jonah. The Rhino. We all had our greatest loves brought back. Just to have them die again.”
Pardon me, WHAT?! Wut? U wot M8?
Gwen may have been your FIRST love, but your GREATEST love is still alive and her name is MARY JANE.
“Yeah, Peter’s comment doesn’t make sense on two levels. One, what does “living for facts” have to do with seeking counsel from a Spiritual Advisor for help on a personal issue? And if this is Peter’s view on things, the fact that Betty would want to see a Spiritual Advisor should tell him that this is something serious and not to be dismissed with him defining her entirely by her career- telling her how she lives her life, and then imply that what she wants to do goes against her own character.
Exactly.
“Gwen may have been your FIRST love, but your GREATEST love is still alive and her name is MARY JANE.”
I almost want to do a separate blog posts on that point alone, Carnage 707. If you haven’t mentioned that on Spider-Man Crawlspace, then you should. 🙂
Thanks for the reply! I would love to see you do a separate blog post concerning the Mary Jane and Gwen thing.
Also, I forgot to add- Gwen wasn’t even taken away again. She was taken away from Peter once. The woman who just died was not Gwen Stacy. If Jackal had brought Ben back it wouldn’t have been him either, and Peter would still need to go to his grave to speak to him, not talk to the new individual created from Ben’s DNA and recorded memories.
“Thanks for the reply! I would love to see you do a separate blog post concerning the Mary Jane and Gwen thing.”
I’ll probably mention the Gwen thing during a video review of the issue. I’ll make sure to take a screenshot of your comment and use it in the video. 🙂
you always have the best comments Carnage. Your understanding of Peter Parker exceeds Slotts by miles.In a just world, we would be talking about a great issue of Spider-Man you wrote, I would be a Spider-Man fan, and Dan Slott would be an obsessed fan//critic on CBR complaining about how bad it is with 1 or 2 other guys.
Hey, Doug, on that blog post about MJ and Gwen, I’d be curious to hear you address this somehow: (https://www.bleedingcool.com/2017/03/18/peter-parkermary-jane-watson-marriage-will-never-ever-return-infinity-says-dan-slott/), or elsewhere as may be relevant. (I was part of the forum discussion that prompted Slott’s postings. Can’t say that he seemed the most rational at the time.)
Sorry, suddenly realized that you weren’t doing a blog post, I’d just misread a reader’s response. Oops! Either way, I would be curious to hear you on the article.
“Sorry, suddenly realized that you weren’t doing a blog post, I’d just misread a reader’s response. Oops! Either way, I would be curious to hear you on the article.”
No problem. The thing that I find funny about this is that Dan Slott appears to think he is Nostradamus — or should we say Slottstradamus? It’s one thing to say, “I just don’t see it happening anytime soon based on my inside-knowledge of how Marvel/Disney operates,” but it’s something completely different to say “never” for “infinity” with the Slott-mandated abuse of the caps lock button.
Based on Dan Slott’s Twitter feed, he seems to think it’s more likely that a few hundred congressmen can accurately plan a $14 trillion economy than the creative stars aligning so Peter Parker’s marriage to MJ can be reconstituted. Heh. Okay, Dan.
How does Dan Slott know what today’s Marvel interns are going to want to do 15 years from now? He doesn’t! How does he know what the U.S. cultural landscape will look like 15 years from now? He doesn’t! The hubris it takes to write that kind of screed is enormous. It’s embarrassing. But…at this juncture it’s not really surprising.
Right. It’s one thing to say, “I personally think Marvel won’t go down that road again. Even if Peter and MJ get back together, they probably won’t be married, just because Marvel equally doesn’t want to kill MJ or have them divorce, just to get back to a single Peter.”
It’s another thing to shout “No! No! No!” and flip one’s self all around the set like Lego Batman (or, you know, like a 15-year-old instead of a grown man).
“It’s another thing to shout “No! No! No!” and flip one’s self all around the set like Lego Batman (or, you know, like a 15-year-old instead of a grown man).”
Dan Slott is also the guy who said that he had “no idea” how Donald Trump won the U.S. presidential election. One would think that Mr. Slott would privately admit that his powers of prognostication are severely lacking. He can’t even read the political tea leaves in the current election cycle, but he thinks he can do so with comic industry insiders 10-15 years down the road? Good one, Dan!
I enjoyed the commentary on this subject quite a bit. Unfortunately, I won’t buy anything by Slott, so I can’t really comment well on any of the Spider-Man writing (hell, I can’t even see Logan, After being away from the kids for 2 weeks, I can’t stand the idea of sending them to a sitter while I watch the movie right now)
I came in through Love. I was an Atheist, I can’t speak for others, but atheism tainted my reasoning, where I would be incredibly resistant to proofs that I would accept under any other subject, but for Christianity, where every proof must be deconstructed or dismissed.
I’m a big fan of ancient mythology, especially the more ‘obscure’ kind, such as the Bhagavad Gita. In almost every historical work such as this, there are tales of the fantastic, or difficult to explain. What’s crazy, is the in almost every instance, mainstream historians and other seekers of knowledge go out of their way to prove that the events and figures within happened/existed.
Save one: The Bible, where only the adherents even try. We are always trying to find proof that things in it did NOT happen.
For us Atheists…if we didn’t have a Christ to debunk, we would have had nothing to do at all. We sure didn’t spend a lot of time on Siddhārtha Gautama, to bug the local Buddhists about how backwards their faith was.
Of course, none of that had anything to do with my conversion, except make it easier to not be an atheist anymore…if for no other reason than it’s exhausting to pretend you don’t care about God and gods…when God is pretty much all you think about.
Dan Slott has a very narrow minded world view. Pushing atheistic points of view as facts in a super hero comic book where multi-dimensional beings and demons exist, is such a hypocritical paradox.
Reporters can’t be people of faith? I’m sure that would come as a shock to my mother, who is deeply religious, and was a print journalist for most of her adult life. Even worked for a “Major Metropolitan Newspaper” when she was pregnant with me.
Of course to be fair, she was actually objective, like a journalist is supposed to be. I can’t say for certain, but I have an inkling such an idea is foreign to the news sources Mr. Slott follows. That isn’t the point though.
Both my parents were journalists (back when that was something to be proud of) I am a reporter (who follows the ethics of the business), and I find this incredibly irritating. Way too many people don’t understand the points of the job at all, left o right, and sadly a lot of people in the public eye who claim to participate in it.
There is a difference between skepticism on the job, and how you live your home life. Yes the job does slip into the rest of your life. However, while I am not particularly religious (I would also not classify myself as atheist), there is no real break in the world of journalism and spirituality.
Yes, we may be a bit more skeptical of the actual words of the minister/priest.rabbi, what have you, needing a sermon based more on real world connections and examples, as well as scripture points than blind platitudes, That however does not mean a true and serious journalist can’t see value or practice the concept of faith.
It could even be looked at that journalists would be more interested in religion than the average person, as a group trained to seek answers, the idea of seeking them for less tangible questions is only natural.
By the way, I’m a different Jack.
“By the way, I’m a different Jack.”
You’re in luck — we have room for two Jacks around here! You’re welcome to stay as long as you wish. 🙂
“Reporters can’t be people of faith? I’m sure that would come as a shock to my mother, who is deeply religious, and was a print journalist for most of her adult life. Even worked for a ‘Major Metropolitan Newspaper’ when she was pregnant with me.”
Think of how many comic readers out there are just like you and your mom. Now ask yourself, “Why the heck would Dan Slott needlessly alienate us with cracks like that?” He must be completely clueless as to how anyone outside his NYC secular bubble lives, or he’s just a partisan hack whose agenda trumps good taste. One look at his Twitter feed indicates that it may very well be the latter option.
“Of course to be fair, she was actually objective, like a journalist is supposed to be. I can’t say for certain, but I have an inkling such an idea is foreign to the news sources Mr. Slott follows. That isn’t the point though.”
Again, check out Dan’s Twitter feed for a week (if you aren’t blocked already). He makes no attempt to hide it that he’s a hard-core member of the activist left.
“Both my parents were journalists (back when that was something to be proud of) I am a reporter (who follows the ethics of the business), and I find this incredibly irritating. Way too many people don’t understand the points of the job at all, left o right, and sadly a lot of people in the public eye who claim to participate in it.”
There was a time during election season when I received feedback at work claiming that I was somehow a blind Trump supporter and part of a media conspiracy to take down his campaign. Haha. I figure that if the hard right and the hard left activists scream at me at the same time, then there’s a good chance I’m doing my job well.
“Yes, we may be a bit more skeptical of the actual words of the minister/priest.rabbi, what have you, needing a sermon based more on real world connections and examples, as well as scripture points than blind platitudes, That however does not mean a true and serious journalist can’t see value or practice the concept of faith.”
Exactly. If anything, my nature has prompted me to really examine why I believe what I believe. Any faith should be able to stand up to rigorous intellectual debate. I am a Catholic, and I want all Catholics to read the best and brightest that has ever been written.
“It could even be looked at that journalists would be more interested in religion than the average person, as a group trained to seek answers, the idea of seeking them for less tangible questions is only natural.”
A good journalist seeks the truth — wherever it leads. I believe that everyone’s heart not only yearns for truth, but the ultimate Truth. Given that one Man walked the earth and said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me,” that is a guy I want to study, meet, etc. As you said earlier, the Dan Slotts of the world can’t seem to grasp how normal people can be logical and spiritual at the time. If he checked his ego at the door, then he would see that the two are not mutually exclusive.
Thanks for taking the time to watch the video and comment, Jack. I appreciate it.
I’m also reminded of the issue of ASM from J Michael Stracinski’s run (I recall) prior to the “Sins Past” story arc where there is explicit inner dialogue written for Peter Parker that indicates that he has a strong faith in God, which is in direct conflict with the characterization of him by Dan Slott here. Sounds like more of that ol’ Marvel SJW business to me. The more I read about Slott, the less I’m sure he belongs on a professional stint as a comicbook writer, but he is nonetheless.
“I’m also reminded of the issue of ASM from J Michael Stracinski’s run (I recall) prior to the ‘Sins Past’ story arc where there is explicit inner dialogue written for Peter Parker that indicates that he has a strong faith in God, which is in direct conflict with the characterization of him by Dan Slott here.”
I need to go through my old issues of ASM and find that, because I do have a vague memory of the scene you’re talking about. JMS may have written a few weird stories (how much were editorially mandated I don’t know), but I really enjoyed his take on Peter. When he got inside Peter’s head, it was definitely “Peter.” It wasn’t JMS trying to use Peter to push a political agenda.
Whether we as flesh and blood humans believer or not is irrelevant to why this was a stupid thing to write. In the context of the Marvel Universe it is absolutely ridiculous to not believe in the supernatural. In point of order it would be Peter rejecting FACT to not believe in the supernatural.
But also at the end of the day it was a pretty rude thing to say to someone without knowing the anything else.
Looking forward to the writing conversation. As an avid reader of all things (even games that have a lot of reading) I often times find myself face palming at some horrible writing. I think one of the top 5 cardinal sins is taking a personal opinion, showing a world where that opinion would be wrong, then trying to say no my opinion is still correct in the story because reasons.
“Whether we as flesh and blood humans believer or not is irrelevant to why this was a stupid thing to write. In the context of the Marvel Universe it is absolutely ridiculous to not believe in the supernatural. In point of order it would be Peter rejecting FACT to not believe in the supernatural.” But also at the end of the day it was a pretty rude thing to say to someone without knowing the anything else.
You’re right on point. And that’s how we know that Dan was weirdly injecting his own beliefs into Peter’s mouth.
“Looking forward to the writing conversation. As an avid reader of all things (even games that have a lot of reading) I often times find myself face palming at some horrible writing. I think one of the top 5 cardinal sins is taking a personal opinion, showing a world where that opinion would be wrong, then trying to say no my opinion is still correct in the story because reasons.”
It takes a stunning lack of self-awareness for a writer to do that, but as you point out…it happens a lot. I may be a conservative guy, but I take other ideologies very seriously. The last thing I would want to do when writing a liberal character would be to purposely turn him into a cartoon when the situation demanded intellectual weight, drama, etc.