Stephen Colbert Pokes Fun at 'The Bible' Miniseries

While The History Channel's miniseries "The Bible" continues to garner millions of viewers every week, one comedian has opted to poke fun at the program.

Comedy Central satirist Stephen Colbert, known for his faux conservative program "The Colbert Report," had a segment Monday evening about the miniseries and its production team.

"The Word of God, the story of all creation, doesn't really have the legs to sustain an entire series; unlike The History Channel's Big Shrimpin,'" quipped Colbert.

He also talked about Roma Downey, co-producer of the miniseries, being cast for the role of the Virgin Mary.

"Wow, I wonder who she had to sleep with to get that part? Nobody! It's called the Immaculate Audition," said Colbert, mockingly calling producers Downey and Burnett "America's preeminent theological scholars."

"This is huge. Don't take it from me folks how huge it is. Take it from the man who wrote the Bible: Mark Burnett."

Colbert also poked some fun at Diogo Morgado, who was casted to play Jesus Christ. Colbert referred to him as "a beefcake Jesus."

"Their Jesus is way too hot. It does not project holiness when you cannot look at him without saying 'God damn!'" said Colbert.

"We need a Jesus who suffers like us – with a spare tire, receding hairline and who only came back on Easter because he heard there was chocolate."

A practicing Catholic who has taught Sunday School and periodically done his "Colbert Report" program on Ash Wednesday with ashes on his forehead, Colbert has stated in the past that he feels no religious concern to his humor.

At a September 2012 panel discussion that included New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan and the Rev. James Martin, official chaplain for the "Colbert Report," Colbert explained that his humor focuses more on the misuse of religion.

"I love my church – warts and all," said Colbert before the estimated 3,000 people gather. "If Jesus doesn't have a sense of humor, I am in huge trouble."

The F bomb has a whole lot of meanings beyond sleeping with someone.

- Saying "F@#%" in frustration due to dropping something or a computer malfunction is one thing. It's not directed at a person. When I use the term, it's almost always in this context or in emphasizing a point. "f'n BS" describing one of Obama's incredulous claims.

- Saying the words in front of women and children is another. Is it the word itself that makes it bad? No, but offending women and children.

Telling someone to "Go #@%# themselves" is a whole different thing. (Great commandment about loving our neighbors as ourselves)

Spreading a false rumor that John was a homo. (Bearing false witness)

Propositioning a woman with no intent of marriage is yet another. (Adultery, fornication, coveting neighbor's wife, etc)

The point? Actions and intent. Those latter things are bad no matter what words are used. Lying, cheating, stealing, etc.

You raise a good point. I suppose for those who do not wish, for whatever reason, to introduce human reason into their faith (a near oxymoron to me but whatever), then it’s perfectly fine to treat all sin as the same. After all, that’s the “safe bet”, if all we have is the Bible as our guide.

Thankfully though, we Catholics aren’t so encumbered and I would submit, it’s a much better way to stay focused on what we are supposed to do, which is love and serve God. IOW, for me, if I had to live my life worried about every little sin as if it were equal to murder, I’d get very little done in the area of “loving and serving God”.

It must be difficult to live in such a way. Sadly, even some Saints in the Church have been saddled with such an unreasonable concern. It’s called “scrupulosity”. How can one live like that though? Only two ways I can see: 1. To believe that all one’s sins are forgiven already, even ones not committed yet or 2., to obsess about the smallest if sins, conflating even the smallest to the level of murder. Neither of which is truly a human way to live. At least IMO.

Thankfully we have more than Scripture to guide us in all aspects of the Faith. One is the reasonableness of our Faith. We are not only “allowed” to use the mind given to us but encouraged. Thus, such questions about which constitute serious sins and which do not are pretty much easy to answer. And in the few instances it’s not, we have the Tradition and /or the Magisterium upon which to rely.

For example, your question about “do not injure”, not being a specific command (in Scripture). This is true, so what to do with it?

First of all, it strikes me now that if one relies on Scripture alone to determine what is “sin” and what is not, I don’t think I’d want to run into such a “Christian”! After all, such a person wouldn’t ( or really couldn’t ) believe that physically injuring someone is a sin, for any reason, even if only in anger.

Secondly though, from reason it would stand that if “murdering” someone is a sin of grave matter, then beating someone would probably be one too! But even beyond that, in the Church, in many guides to the Sacrament of Confession, (called examinations of conscience), one question to ask oneself is, “Have you physically harmed another?”

If the answer is yes, then this is considered (at least possibly, depending on the severity of course), to be a violation of the 5th Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”, and thus would be a sin as serious as taking a life.

Again, it all comes down to reason. If one isn’t willing to introduce reason into one’s faith, then that faith must become quite a burden (#2 above) or nothing of any real substance (#1 above). But to each his own I suppose.

I think you misunderstand. Of course scripture must be applied with reason or how could we possibly understand its intent. It is not a matter of treating all sin the same, but recognizing what is sinful, regardless of degree and developing habits to avoid that behavior.

I won't brutalize myself over minor transgressions, but I will not excuse them either simply because they are minor. I will NOT debate with myself over what constitutes minor versus major profanity, for example. I try to purge that language from usage, and I am not always successful. But the bad habits I acquired can be undone if I want them undone, and that is all I am acknowledging. That is not burdensome or distracting.

To reinforce your point about “reason”, we most definitely must reason because not all of our choices are so crystal clear and often presented to us in very deceptive forms. For example, supporting a progressive income tax is, in my opinion, a direct violation of the 8th and 10th Commandments. I am not absolved because I elect a surrogate to steal on my behalf to satisfy my envious desire. I had to reach that by reason, but that reason had to have a foundation in scripture.

In the case of causing injury, scripture is very specific about that though it is not in the top 10 list. But nonetheless, I agree one can reach the same conclusion by reason. By the same line of reason we can acknowledge that most any action we take that recklessly jeopardizes life, such as drunken driving, is sinful, even if we “get lucky” and injure no one.

I doubt most Christians rely soley on their knowledge of scripture to determine right and wrong. I'll admit I can't not having that perfect a recollection of everything that is in scripture, so I rely on basic principles that I do know are scriptural.

We have strayed quite far from the topic of the original post but this has been a delightful and informative exchange for me and I want to thank everyone for their thoughtful contributions.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.