The current Hollywood super hero films - are they simply a continuation of the Gods theme that has been around for thousands of years?
No, not really. The gods were not just the guides of human destiny but also the creators of humanity. The super heroes do not claim anything like that.
That part would go to the alien forefathers groups.
deletedmemberdpOctober 19, 2020 at 10:43#4626030 likes
Reply to Sir2u I doubt if the audience being targeted are going to critically analyse the differences between Gods and super heroes. To this audience the super heroes replace the need for God/Gods and thus continue to negate the need for religion , much as the Frankfurt School intended. Dumbing down of culture is everywhere.
deletedmemberdpOctober 19, 2020 at 10:46#4626040 likes
I doubt if the audience being targeted are going to critically analyse the differences between Gods and super heroes.
Not much analysis necessary. I doubt that they are watching these movies looking for a god substitute anyway.
Most of the people that are influenced by the characters in these movies want to be like the heroes, they want to be more than their pitiful human life lets them be. The rest are just looking for entertainment.
To this audience the super heroes replace the need for God/Gods and thus continue to negate the need for religion , much as the Frankfurt School intended. Dumbing down of culture is everywhere.
If someone has a need for a god they will worship one, but not many superheroes are believable gods even for the dumbest. They might hero worship them and even try to act like them, but how many people really try to act like a god?
The fact that lots of people watch these superheroes does in no way negate the need for religion, more over it proves the need for them. People need something to look up to, to guide and inspire them. If it was just a continuation as you state, then it would definitely point towards a need for some sort of religion.
deletedmemberdpOctober 20, 2020 at 05:46#4629660 likes
Not much analysis necessary. I doubt that they are watching these movies looking for a god substitute anyway.
Are you being philosophical in your analysis? God protects and so do the super heroes. When you are young this can cement itself in your mind and unless you are brought up in a religious family these super heroes substitute a God that you know little about. We all need protection, government knows this. The underlying problem is that the Church is a stumbling block for government as religious people have always preferred to take instruction from the Lord which is why there is so much anti religious rhetoric out there. Get rid of religion and the people are easier to manipulate. China controls its people without much dissent.
deletedmemberdpOctober 20, 2020 at 05:55#4629670 likes
The fact that lots of people watch these superheroes does in no way negate the need for religion, more over it proves the need for them. People need something to look up to, to guide and inspire them. If it was just a continuation as you state, then it would definitely point towards a need for some sort of religion.
That seems to analyse the situation in a religious perspective. The reality is that the bare bones of the God question is simply as a protector and no more to most people. Obviously to a religious person who has read the Scriptures thousands of times the meaning is far, far more. To reach the masses in the government needs to then society has to be dumbed down and dismantled in a Derrida way which is what has happened. Popular culture now is dominated by celebrities ( God substitutes again).
Jesus was a radical and understood the existential way in which we live. The New Covenant is evidence of that.
When you are young this can cement itself in your mind and unless you are brought up in a religious family these super heroes substitute a God that you know little about.
How young are you talking about?
If you see superman when you are maybe 5 to 10 years old you have little idea about what a god actually is. This is actually true for a lot of adults as well. What you would do is play at being him, as many kid falling of roofs trying to fly. You see him as someone to imitate, you try to act like him.
While, as you said, this can cement itself into their minds but they eventually realize that they can never become him or call on him for help because he is just a comic book or movie character.
God on the other hand can be asked for help any time you want to, and occasionally it comes.
The reality is that the bare bones of the God question is simply as a protector and no more to most people.
Your reality. With so many millions of people throughout the world worshiping gods who are the creators of everything not many view their god as a simple protector.
To reach the masses in the government needs to then society has to be dumbed down and dismantled in a Derrida way which is what has happened. Popular culture now is dominated by celebrities ( God substitutes again).
You maybe right about the leaders wanting to dumb down the majority of society, but the movies are only a very small part of that. If that was to be a criteria for calling something a god, then a smartphone has a greater impact than super heroes.
If you do not hold sacred the christian god, why do you capitalize the word?
deletedmemberdpOctober 21, 2020 at 07:49#4633440 likes
"God on the other hand can be asked for help any time you want to, and occasionally it comes."
This is my point. God protects us and we call him when in need. The super heroes symbolise the fight against evil, a fight that always eventually ends up with good being the strongest. God is good and also creates the fight against evil within man. Subliminally or not these super heroes substitute the need for God by reverting back to having a god for every purpose. The one God seems banal in comparison.
deletedmemberdpOctober 21, 2020 at 09:32#4633710 likes
"but the movies are only a very small part of that."
How many times in history do we overlook this kind of propaganda by dismissing it as of little or no consequence. The beginning of such moments always start subliminally and in small measure. That allows them to grow quicker in a subversive way
deletedmemberdpOctober 21, 2020 at 09:40#4633750 likes
"Your reality. With so many millions of people throughout the world worshiping gods who are the creators of everything not many view their god as a simple protector."
"My reality" doesn't sound very philosophical as "your reality" can equally be questioned. The worshipers, in my experience, have little real understanding of God as you may have which makes them easy to control. The Catholic faith is all about Catholicism and maintaining the status quo, too many of the fundamentalists swanning around full of their own importance, berating others and totally oblivious of the hypocrisy surrounding this. Jesus was a radical in his approach to the Jewish Pharisees as they behaved in the same way.
If the people are so stupid that they are substituting comic book super heroes for gods then I ask again, why do they imitate and try to be super heroes but have never imitated nor tried to be gods.
Yes some old time rulers turned themselves into gods, power trips, but the common everyday man on the street does not do it, why not?
deletedmemberdpOctober 22, 2020 at 06:03#4637830 likes
"If the people are so stupid that they are substituting comic book super heroes for gods then I ask again, why do they imitate and try to be super heroes but have never imitated nor tried to be gods.
Yes some old time rulers turned themselves into gods, power trips, but the common everyday man on the street does not do it, why not?"
Ok, God doesn't go around showing us that good prevails over evil in such a spectacular media driven fashion. We all have a moral base, we all need a moral base and when these morals no longer exist then evil occurs. God is not evidently there for the non believer, He is there only when you choose to see Him. Society needs this moral base obviously but as the Frankfurt School realised it is the religious way of control that hindered the spread of communism as the masses were "happy" to suffer in this life for the sake of a better life in the hereafter. Breaking down the moral tenets of the Church, highlighting for instance the hypocrisy of the clergy and introducing laws allowing gay marriage etc has allowed the liberal Left to take away the authority of the Church . The Frankfurt School left Germany and came to the US back in the thirties and have done a great job of dismantling the need for the Church and introduced a society that is intolerant to intolerance.
Mayor of SimpletonOctober 22, 2020 at 08:39#4638040 likes
That's the whole point, Sir2u. These super heroes represent good and evil without the religious control that goes with it. Governments create fear so you feel safe when they are seen to be our protectors and the Church creates fear ( Hell and damnation) in the same way. It's all about getting away from religious control of the masses by creating a material world that recognises the here and now and not a spiritual world that recognises the here and after.
deletedmemberdpOctober 23, 2020 at 07:21#4640590 likes
"So the evil of the world is now caused by the super hero movies? How does that make sense?
And the good behavior of these heroes is set as a moral base for the people that don't believe in a god?
I am beginning to think that you are making less and less sense with each post you make.
And please learn how to quote properly."
A closed mind is a good thing to lose.......Evil in the world is not caused by the super heroes. They are there to substitute the need for a god or gods which has opened the door for thousands of years to corrupt religious systems, systems that have hindered the rise of left wing liberalism. They are a tool amongst many to create the subliminal thought that a god or gods are on the same base level as superheroes, myths but nice thoughts. My phrasing could have been better as the superheroes are the good ones and the evil ones are the characters that represent the evil. Having re-read my response to you I guess you could presume the evil ones are also super heroes but that would miss the point of the whole process.
deletedmemberdpOctober 23, 2020 at 07:34#4640620 likes
"So is this thread really about advocating for belief in the monotheistic God of Roman Catholicism, or any comparable Christian faith?"
No, it is about the Frankfurt School critically analysing the reason why communism didn't sweep across the world as was forecast back in the 30's. They decided that the Church ( religion per se ) had control over the masses and set about dismantling the authority of the Church. The super heroes are part of that as are many of the popular woke behaviours that challenge everything that has been accepted as gospel even after the enlightenment. God is simply a need for the masses to believe in a protector- thus the invention of super heroes who let children , in particular, realise that you don't need to believe in God to be good , or even to believe in God .
Equality doesn't matter in this life as your reward is in the next. Apologies to the religious members but this is simply about discussion, hopefully an open minded one.Reply to Sir2uQuoting Sir2u
They decided that the Church ( religion per se ) had control over the masses and set about dismantling the authority of the Church.
This sounds conspiratorial as if it was a project of planned intent rather than a historical accident of the spread of ideas. The complexity of factors governing historical change makes this theory sound silly. Maybe if the public didn't know how to read at all the authority of religions (Christianity/Islam?) would still properly mediate moral behavior toward a reward in an afterlife.
Maybe it would be a good idea to lose yours then, you seem pretty convinced that you are 100% right and no matter others say you will still be right.
If one were to say that superheroes have or are taking the place of gods one would have to show some sort of evidence to back up the statements. Thus far you have failed miserable to do so.
The fact that they are popular, even among religious people, does not make then a god. If that were true then Elvis, Humphrey Bogart, and Obama are also gods.
For any being to take the place of a god would mean that it would have to fulfill the requisites of that god.
1. would have to been responsible for the creation of everything.
2. would have to be the guiding force behind the destiny of mankind
3. would have to be the moral compass of mankind's morality
4. would have to be the object of devotion/ worship of humanity
In the space below please list the Super Heroes that fulfill at least 2 of the above.
deletedmemberdpOctober 24, 2020 at 08:31#4643710 likes
"Maybe it would be a good idea to lose yours then, you seem pretty convinced that you are 100% right and no matter others say you will still be right."
If I had a closed mind the question I asked would have been a statement. I am open to argument obviously.
"If one were to say that superheroes have or are taking the place of gods one would have to show some sort of evidence to back up the statements."
The same kind of evidence that God exists? Celebrities are also the new gods, they perform the same cultural, psychological role . God needs to disappear, his role in leading, supporting and nurturing people is over. he is no longer needed and the evidence for that is in the empty churches, the so called Christians that pay lip service to their religion. The Church's authority over anything has diminished. Would the majority of people prefer to listen to Jesus' wise mumblings or the unwise, heedless mumblings of a celebrity/media influencer?
"For any being to take the place of a god would mean that it would have to fulfill the requisites of that god.
1. would have to been responsible for the creation of everything.
2. would have to be the guiding force behind the destiny of mankind
3. would have to be the moral compass of mankind's morality
4. would have to be the object of devotion/ worship of humanity"
Again you are missing the point. You can easily create this God substitute without equally creating your points 1-4. People I know do not look at the subliminal substitute of God with points 1-4 in their head. God is points 1-4 to a fundamental Baptist no doubt but, to the guy in the street who probably only thinks about God when he is in a life threatening situation where he knows Batman etc is not going to save him, points 1-4 are irrelevant. Hopefully you will pick up on the point that, when really necessary, Batman is not really a god to most people ( god not God, of course).
Mayor of SimpletonOctober 24, 2020 at 08:34#4643720 likes
If anyone can show me one example
In the history of the world
Of a single psychic
Who has been able to prove
Under reasonable experimental conditions
That they are able to read minds
And if anyone can show me one example
In the history of the world
Of a single astrologer
Who has been able to prove
Under reasonable experimental conditions
That they can predict future human events
By interpreting celestial signs
And if anyone can show me one example
In the history of the world
Of a single homeopathic practitioner
Who has been able to prove
Under reasonable experimental conditions
That solutions made of infinitely tiny particles of good stuff
Dissolved repeatedly into relatively huge quantities of water
Has a consistently higher medicinal value
Than a similarly-administered placebo
And if anyone can show me one example
In the history of the world
Of a single spiritual or religious person
Who has been able to prove
Either logically or empirically
The existence of a higher power
That has any consciousness or interest in the human race
Or ability to punish or reward humans for their moral choices
Or that there is any reason other than fear
To believe in any version
Of an afterlife
I will give you my piano
One of my legs
And my wife
deletedmemberdpOctober 24, 2020 at 08:42#4643750 likes
There is a need now, interestingly, to try and dumb down the importance of the Frankfurt School theorists. Conspiracy theory seems to have become a term of derision which, without being too conspiratorial again, also further inhibits any challenge to the new status quo.
"For the purpose of trying to make sense of this thread can you say that this quotation is a statement of your own belief? It's somewhat dumbfounding."
A belief is too strong a word to use and can be used to pigeon hole someone. When in discussion with the fundamentalists, rather than those paying lip service to their religion, there seems to be a belief that this life is a spring board to the next.
deletedmemberdpOctober 24, 2020 at 08:47#4643770 likes
If anyone can show me one example
In the history of the world
Of a single psychic
Who has been able to prove
Under reasonable experimental conditions
That they are able to read minds
And if anyone can show me one example
In the history of the world
Of a single astrologer
Who has been able to prove
Under reasonable experimental conditions
That they can predict future human events
By interpreting celestial signs
And if anyone can show me one example
In the history of the world
Of a single homeopathic practitioner
Who has been able to prove
Under reasonable experimental conditions
That solutions made of infinitely tiny particles of good stuff
Dissolved repeatedly into relatively huge quantities of water
Has a consistently higher medicinal value
Than a similarly-administered placebo
And if anyone can show me one example
In the history of the world
Of a single spiritual or religious person
Who has been able to prove
Either logically or empirically
The existence of a higher power
That has any consciousness or interest in the human race
Or ability to punish or reward humans for their moral choices
Or that there is any reason other than fear
To believe in any version
Of an afterlife
I will give you my piano
One of my legs
And my wife
Science has a lot to answer for, Mayor of Simpleton. Even science realises its limitations when it constantly updates and changes its beliefs.
Mayor of SimpletonOctober 24, 2020 at 09:04#4643820 likes
Science has a lot to answer for, Mayor of Simpleton. Even science realises its limitations when it constantly updates and changes its beliefs.
Exactly... and science does this on a regular basis.
That's what is completely missing in religious belief.
Science (which is a process... it's not a belief system in an of itself) knows it doesn't know everything, as if it did know everything it would stop.
Religious lays claim to a certainty it cannot back with anything other that saying 'because it's so' and has essentially stopped investigations, as this self-assumed certainty grants them no more cause to investigate further. All you need is faith, so facts matter little and in the end religion has little to answer for.
More or less science starts with what can be observed, tests it and refines it's conclusions provided a conclusion can be drawn form the process. There is no principle in science that state the scientist need be satisfied with the results.
Religions starts with drawing the conclusion then creates 'tests' that conform to the conclusion using only that which is observed that fits the conclusion subsequently tossing out anything else observed that might come into conflict pre-assumed conclusion. In religion the believer will in the end be satisfied with the results of the loaded dice they toss about.
So which is really closed minded?
The one who knows they don't know everything or the one who decrees in all certainty a conclusion of which they have no evidence or support other than saying 'because it's so'?
deletedmemberdpOctober 24, 2020 at 09:40#4643880 likes
"The one who knows they don't know everything or the one who decrees in all certainty a conclusion of which they have no evidence or support other than saying 'because it's so'?"
My definition of a closed mind, Mayor of Simpleton, is a mind that has made its mind up and then closes that mind to anything that may challenge the closed mind.
Consciously or unconsciously that mind may appear to open but fundamentally it has closed.
Mayor of SimpletonOctober 24, 2020 at 10:02#4643960 likes
My definition of a closed mind, Mayor of Simpleton, is a mind that has made its mind up and then closes that mind to anything that may challenge the closed mind.
Consciously or unconsciously that mind may appear to open but fundamentally it has closed.
Indeed... and that sort of 'thinking' is not the realm of scientific method, but is the cornerstone of religious belief.
Celebrities are also the new gods, they perform the same cultural, psychological role .
This is why I asked you to provide some sort of evidence. What are your reasons for thinking this? If they do not perform the cultural and psychological roles that I listed, what do they do?
My definition of a closed mind, Mayor of Simpleton, is a mind that has made its mind up and then closes that mind to anything that may challenge the closed mind.
So you are very closed minded in your belief the the superheroes of today are the equivalent of the gods of yesterday. Without any evidence to prove your point.
A belief is too strong a word to use and can be used to pigeon hole someone. When in discussion with the fundamentalists, rather than those paying lip service to their religion, there seems to be a belief that this life is a spring board to the next.
Is it wrong to ask you whether or not you believe in an afterlife given the statements you made in this thread and further that you'd characterize yourself as a man/woman of Christian faith? Perhaps the afterlife is really just what you'll leave behind for your sons and daughters and your neighbor's sons and daughters and your enemy's sons and daughters. In other words, the afterlife is about the lives after (or beside) yours, tribal religious identity notwithstanding.
What God movies have you been watching? I remember watching one where this guy was literally crucified and asking God for help. He didn’t help.
I remember that one, the guy hung there there for a day and died from it. Most of the others that got the same treatment stayed alive for days suffering. What a wimp.
Rewatching the scene just now I can see that I was mistaken. In my defense, it’s a musical and sometimes in musicals I get more rapped in the music than the story. I mean, does anyone remember what happens in Cats beside a catchy tune or two and that it felt kinda weird wanting to bang a hot cat-girl?
Reply to praxis :lol: :lol: I remember going to see that, we laughed so much they actually asked us to leave. That was one hell of funny film.
I remember sitting in the pub later an discussing the guy asking his daddy WHY he had to die while all the while implying that he had known about the whole plan from the beginning.
Thanks for the memories.
deletedmemberdpOctober 26, 2020 at 08:01#4650330 likes
"Is it wrong to ask you whether or not you believe in an afterlife given the statements you made in this thread and further that you'd characterize yourself as a man/woman of Christian faith?"
It's irrelevant, quite frankly. Wrong seems the wrong (oops!) word to use in this instance as I am not offended by your asking.
deletedmemberdpOctober 26, 2020 at 08:06#4650350 likes
"I remember going to see that, we laughed so much they actually asked us to leave. That was one hell of funny film."
You laughed? Each to his own.
"This is why I asked you to provide some sort of evidence. What are your reasons for thinking this? If they do not perform the cultural and psychological roles that I listed, what do they do?"
After laughing in the Christ film I now understand why you have such a problem recognising the subliminal reasoning behind the super heroes.
Even if the Frankfurt school could be blamed for whatever historical change one dislikes, there are many other contributory forces. Maybe Capitalism itself, insofar as it must forever appeal to consumer demand in an ever increasing turn of cultural innovation, exploits human desire for profits to the point of undermining the authority of religious institutions. Things change in time even though we might love to complain about it.
Any church/government/culture (what/which?) could have outlawed television, radio and internet. Why didn't they. The Amish still don't use these things...(?)
After laughing in the Christ film I now understand why you have such a problem recognising the subliminal reasoning behind the super heroes.
I doubt that you understand, because I don't have a problem recognizing subliminal reasoning that does not exist. If it did, you would be able to provide some sort of evidence of its existence. You would pint to a new temple being built to house the Spiderman cult, or the secret sect of Hulk worshipers.
But the only thing that you could possibly point to is a bunch of that go to Comic-Con events dressed as their favorite scifi character. While I agree that some of these people do go beyond reasonable obsessiveness, if you ask them about their hero being a god you will probably be laughed at.
Superheroes do not, have never, and never will take the place of gods because the do not serve the same purpose in any society. If you read a bit of history you will find that heroes and gods have lived side by side for a very long time. Some of them were heroes because they defied the gods, other because they fought for the gods, and some even stepped in to help when the gods would not.
deletedmemberdpOctober 27, 2020 at 06:47#4653960 likes
"I don't have a problem recognizing subliminal reasoning that does not exist."
You do state the unusual quite a bit. You recognise something that doesn't exist. That is surprising. I have a real problem recognising anything that doesn't exist, for some reason I only recognise things that exist.
"You would point to a new temple being built to house the Spiderman cult, or the secret sect of Hulk worshipers"
The religious club syndrome is exactly the kind of system that needs to be abolished. Everyone can have their "god" in their own privacy where it does little harm to society. The connection between the "new gods" and the old is evident. The worship of the old God and thus the authoritarian hold over the people is waning and the new era of the super hero gods where they sit nicely in the back of peoples' minds has arrived. The hold over the masses as Orwell predicted has begun and this ignorance about the super heroes sits well with the Frankfurt School plan, I would suggest.
"Superheroes do not, have never, and never will take the place of gods because the do not serve the same purpose in any society."
Beware the intellectual lefties as they understand the value of dumbing down society and attacking those remaining that have the intelligence to challenge the new dawn. Look at it philosophically, i.e objectively for a moment, and notice the rise of the god like celebrities, action heroes, sporting icons etc.
.
deletedmemberdpOctober 27, 2020 at 06:50#4653970 likes
"Any church/government/culture (what/which?) could have outlawed television, radio and internet. Why didn't they. The Amish still don't use these things...(?)"
Even the Amish have problems keeping their flock in order. The Church realise the problems of being religious in a secular, commercially driven world and the apologists out there do a very poor job of defending the faith. Their reaction seems to now be one of victimhood and one day the rest of the world will understood the mess they have got themselves in.
deletedmemberdpOctober 27, 2020 at 14:32#4655380 likes
[quote="BBZ;465534"
"It's show business!"
And show business is the wolf in a sheep's clothing. On the surface it appears like it is just good fun but in reality the subliminal message is hard to avoid and very cleverly uses the propaganda that reaches out to children's accepting, unquestioning minds.
Beware the intellectual lefties as they understand the value of dumbing down society and attacking those remaining that have the intelligence to challenge the new dawn. Look at it philosophically, i.e objectively for a moment, and notice the rise of the god like celebrities, action heroes, sporting icons etc.
Wasn’t it uneducated righties that helped to put a celebrity in the Oval Office in 2016?
On the surface it appears like it is just good fun but in reality the subliminal message is hard to avoid and very cleverly uses the propaganda that reaches out to children's accepting, unquestioning minds.
Holy infantile conditioning Batman, he may be on to something here. :chin: :smirk:
I never knew that what made people think that the Flintstones was a pure and simple kiddies program. It is one of the best examples of subliminal conditioning that I can think of. Watch any episode and you will find messages about how adults are supposed to behave. It contains violence, sexism, crime, child rearing advice and lots of other stuff all nicely wrapped up in a kiddies TV show.
I've gone down the Captain Planet rabbit hole because of this thread. Damn 90s cartoons. They got me!
I might now be further corrupted if I read/listen to Murray Bookchin's Social Ecology propaganda. :monkey: Close your eyes, stopper your ears. Too many voices/channels exchanging ideas.
"What freaking god like characteristic does the kartrashian clan have?
What godlike quality does does David Beckham have?"
There is such confusion. Add to the mix a lack of objectivity and philosophical understanding. Let me try to set you on the right track:
You have the colour blue. It is blue to you but to the colour blind it is not. There are also different shades of blue but to most of us blue is blue. Pedantically you may argue that the blue you are looking at is a light blue but to most people blue is a good enough description.
Transfer that to the God/super heroes question. To you God has x.y and z as you see it but to others the definition of God may not necessarily have the x,y and z as you see it but to them it is God per se.
You have anchored yourself to the constraints of an unphilosophical argument , one that has subjectively already been set in stone and are not seeing it from an alternative person's point of view. Thus you fall into the trap of being easily led to believing there is no threat to belief in God.This is the fundamentalism of the Frankfurt School.
deletedmemberdpOctober 28, 2020 at 06:57#4657270 likes
"I've gone down the Captain Planet rabbit hole because of this thread. Damn 90s cartoons. They got me!"
Varrry eenterezting.................It is usual for someone to reduce an important discussion as this thread affords to that of derision and comedic delusion .I concur that you have lost the argument?
deletedmemberdpOctober 28, 2020 at 07:01#4657280 likes
[quote="Nils Loc;465705"]
"I might now be further corrupted if I read/listen to Murray Bookchin's Social Ecology propaganda. :monkey: Close your eyes, stopper your ears. Too many voices/channels exchanging ideas"
This is good. You are finally seeing the light.
deletedmemberdpOctober 28, 2020 at 10:03#4657750 likes
Rather absurd argument. Fred is hardly a super hero. He constantly tries to outwit his wife and usually gets caught out. Maybe he's a hero to Barney Rubble but not a super hero to anyone. There are subtle nuances in the God like super hero arguments but this is not one of them.
deletedmemberdpOctober 28, 2020 at 12:56#4658130 likes
"Wasn’t it uneducated righties that helped to put a celebrity in the Oval Office in 2016?"
Sadly that was simply a reaction to the reactionary left. The left are still a long way from achieving their aims but, to be fair to them, they seem to be in it for the long term and short term hiccoughs seem to spur them on. Super heroes alone won't achieve their aims and they know that.
Maybe your bugaboo is to be made by a parallel of social justice aspect of superheros and this somehow translates to a "dangerous" or misguided activism of a social justice movement now. Superheros might satisfy a power fantasy of those who have little agency. Though one could just as well be anesthetized by the consumer products of television (or any media art) in which the fantasy of superheros (or Fred and Barney) is just escapist entertainment.
Even the North Koreans risk watching Western media via thumb drives. Not sure any amount of superhero movies is gonna make them risk their lives for social change.
I’m currently rather fond of a series called “The Boys.” The boys are a ragtag group of malcontents who’s intent is to kill-off all the superheroes. They’re anti-superhero heroes, essentially. Those elite Hollywood righties really know how to give a good mind fuck.
This inversion is interesting. The superheros as loved by the public are deeply corrupt figures who have a public persona (celebrity) geared toward manipulation in service of their private lives. The outward persona is the public superhero which belies what they actually are, supervillans.
The same relationship is at play. The heros are mortals with exceptional qualities (perseverance, skill, moral sense) who seek to eliminate the unjust tyranny of gods. The Boys (the group) have all been deeply harmed by the powers that be and this motivates their collaboration toward acts of justice.
Perhaps this is evidence to support to the Plumb theory then, superheroes being super-leftist-villains. On the other hand, the top superhero is called Homelander and supports a xenophobic agenda making him a super-righty-villain. The Hollywood Lefty Elite is super insidious.
Transfer that to the God/super heroes question. To you God has x.y and z as you see it but to others the definition of God may not necessarily have the x,y and z as you see it but to them it is God per se.
So then to make it easier on you, provide some evidence that others are using your definition of god instead of most common, standard, sited in every dictionary definition that everyone else uses.
GOD
1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. "a moon god"
The super heroes of the movies do not even fit in the second category, because no no worships them as having any power over anything at all. They have no effect on peoples everyday lives such as the rain gods are supposed to have.
The fact that the State is using the movies to mind wash the idiots just as they have done with the churches for centuries speaks more to the stupidity of the people than the astuteness of the people running the State.
Supermarket commercials do as much in controlling the masses as any superhero movie does. Do you remember the commercials for cigarettes and booze back in the 60's and 70's, so many people would have thought those actors were gods according to your definition.
If you can do nothing more about proving any of the statements you have made by showing some examples of just how people consider the movies super heroes as gods when they sit down to watch a Superman movie after church on Sunday then I have nothing more to discuss.
deletedmemberdpOctober 29, 2020 at 07:13#4661170 likes
"So your whole argument comes down to the fact that you have changed the meaning of god"
You do like to dumb it all down to the smallest common denominator. Your interpretation of God is your interpretation of God, nothing more and nothing less. Equally you are what I say you are, you are what someone else says you are but you would, naturally due to the subjective manner of your thought processes, say you are what you say you are. There is no getting away with the fact that you are what I say you are. Take for example that someone thinks I am a simpleton but I think I am a genius-in their world I am a simpleton and thus it remains, definition closed with me the simpleton.
"So then to make it easier on you, provide some evidence that others are using your definition of god instead of most common, standard, sited in every dictionary definition that everyone else uses"
Therein lies the problem. You are in a cul de sac of swarming confusion. On the one hand you accept the propaganda with regards to commercials, the subliminal way in which they tell you how glamorous it is to smoke without telling you how bad smoking is for your health. The propaganda is so entrenched that smoking adverts were banned and the government have used all kinds of ways to prevent the active participation of smoking. .
"If you can do nothing more about proving any of the statements you have made by showing some examples of just how people consider the movies super heroes as gods when they sit down to watch a Superman movie after church on Sunday then I have nothing more to discuss."
"I have nothing more to discuss"- best to continue the subjective ,as I see it/ objective as you see it way of thinking. A closed mind is a trapped mind. Proof that God exists is there for all to see unless you rely solely on your senses. Proof is not a simple process of scientific data.
deletedmemberdpOctober 29, 2020 at 09:45#4661380 likes
"Maybe your bugaboo is to be made by a parallel of social justice aspect of superheros and this somehow translates to a "dangerous" or misguided activism of a social justice movement now. Superheros might satisfy a power fantasy of those who have little agency. Though one could just as well be anesthetized by the consumer products of television (or any media art) in which the fantasy of superheros (or Fred and Barney) is just escapist entertainment.
Even the North Koreans risk watching Western media via thumb drives. Not sure any amount of superhero movies is gonna make them risk their lives for social change"
That makes a lot of sense. In an Orwellian way it seems control is easy to achieve without the need to be violent. The intelligentsia need to mask this intelligence as controlling them is difficult.
I don’t think anyone would argue that politicians, ad agencies, think tanks, etc., don’t effectively manipulate the public. What’s unclear is how superheroes in popular culture have usurped God, and if this is the case, and the coup d’état was executed by liberals, how liberalism or a liberal agenda is promoted via the superhero franchise. An explanation of that would be interesting.
From what I remember of the last superhero movie that I watched, the super-villain, I think his name was Thanos, was basically an overzealous ecologist who wanted to half the universal population in the interest of sustainability. The super-heroes fought for a more conservative approach and were vehemently against Thanos's super-radical progressivism. So if anything it seems like conservatism is being championed in this story.
He does not have one, the only way that he could explain it is by saying that the word god has a new definition and that unless you believe him you are closed minded. He does not even have the new definition of god to give us.
"He does not have one, the only way that he could explain it is by saying that the word god has a new definition and that unless you believe him you are closed minded. He does not even have the new definition of god to give us"
Interesting that you talk about a new definition of God as though your knowledge is the correct one. From what I can see so far your definition is a simple one, one that sits well with those that need the conclusions to fit in with their closed mind perceptions. Clear your mind of pre-conditioned bias and open your mind to the possibilities.
"This worries me, he believes that "God", with a capital G exists. What does that tell us about him?"
This worries you? That seems a tad primitive. A day in Aleppo would sort the cobwebs out for you, nay make that an hour.
When you ask "what does that tell us about him" I am surprised that you need to ask. I will now wander the corridors asking myself if Australia exists as I have never been there.
deletedmemberdpOctober 31, 2020 at 10:56#4668050 likes
Interesting that you talk about a new definition of God as though your knowledge is the correct one. From what I can see so far your definition is a simple one, one that sits well with those that need the conclusions to fit in with their closed mind perceptions. Clear your mind of pre-conditioned bias and open your mind to the possibilities.
Seriously, there are several definitions of what a god is. If you look in several dictionaries you will probably be able to find most of those definition. The dictionaries help us to define the properties of a god, so that we can decide whether something would fit into that category.
For example, if you look up the word "chair" you would find several different definitions. What is common to all of those definitions is that they list the types and properties of a chair.
1. A seat for one person, with a support for the back
2. The position of professor
3. The officer who presides at the meetings of an organization
4. An instrument of execution by electrocution; resembles an ordinary seat for one person
5. A particular seat in an orchestra
So if I call the thing that my backside is resting upon a "chair" then surely it would be expected to fit into one of these definitions.
If the thing I am sitting on does not have a back then it does not fit into the first definition so I must either find another name for it or continue to demonstrate my ignorance by calling it a chair still.
While it is common for people to use words incorrectly and for the words to change their meaning if enough people actually continue to use it in a certain way. A really good explanation of this is given here.
The Secret Life of Words:
English Words
and Their Origins
Anne Curzan, Ph.D.
It is really well done, but she has a bad habit of pausing before the last word of the sentence. There are several others that I can recommend and if you are interested I might be able to provide for you.
But there are some words that cannot have their meanings changed without losing the principle significance of the word.
What would happen if people started calling trees "livewood"? The word is obviously correct in its concoction and connotation. But it removes an essential part of the societies concept of the object. People hear or say "tree" and the image of greenery, shade, woods and forests comes to mind. Live would does not do that and probably never will. I seriously doubt the idea that people even over a long time will start calling trees by any other name.
So tree, chair, god have many definitions. But those definitions exist because they are the accepted uses of the words by the society that uses them. And they are written in dictionaries as guides to there usage.
[b]You are trying to put a square peg into a round hole. Show us anywhere there is an acceptable definition that your use of "superheroes" fits into.
If you cannot do this then it is obvious that you are changing the definition to suite your purpose.[/b]
This worries you? That seems a tad primitive. A day in Aleppo would sort the cobwebs out for you, nay make that an hour.
Yes it worries me, fanatics are often the cause of great strife to societies. And confused fanatics that write God with a capital G and then say that superheroes are the new gods would probably be worse.
It is strange that you mention Allepo, do you live there or have you been there? How or in what way do you think that it would remove the cobwebs from my mind? Allepo had serious problems, a lot of them cause by religious factors. Maybe they need to change to superheroes.
I am not up to date about they situation there as I tend to spend more time observing what is happening in the place I live. It had the highest murder rate in the world for several years. The highest violent death rate for a non-combatant area.
"Seriously, there are several definitions of what a god is. If you look in several dictionaries you will probably be able to find most of those definition. The dictionaries help us to define the properties of a god, so that we can decide whether something would fit into that category."
A dictionary definition doesn't make it the truth and that is the whole point.
deletedmemberdpNovember 02, 2020 at 11:10#4675800 likes
"So if I call the thing that my backside is resting upon a "chair" then surely it would be expected to fit into one of these definitions"
Obviously we can't all go wandering around pondering about definitions otherwise nothing would get done. The word God is not something that you can just define in the simplistic fashion you are attempting. I do bow to the musing that these super heroes are more Norse god types than God himself but, as you are intimating, the problem lies with the interpretations. Personally I still believe that kids and even adults are able to see these super heroes as gods or even God if they have little belief or understanding. Everyone probably needs a greater being that allows them to make sense of the world but it's probably not useful for that to be a religious version, as in God.
deletedmemberdpNovember 02, 2020 at 11:12#4675820 likes
"You are trying to put a square peg into a round hole. Show us anywhere there is an acceptable definition that your use of "superheroes" fits into."
This is where you are going wrong, in my humble opinion. The behaviour of those "worshipping" ( feel free to misunderstand this vital phrase) is similar to those who worship gods or God. They see good v evil, they see a saviour when all else fails, they are educated in the rights and wrongs of life, they understand the existentialism of the scenes played out to them and they are excited at the drama and wonder of it all. Just like a religious person is about God and Jesus Christ.
deletedmemberdpNovember 02, 2020 at 11:23#4675850 likes
"How or in what way do you think that it would remove the cobwebs from my mind?"
You won't understand until you get there, I guess. Most of us live sheltered lives unaware of the realities of life's underbelly and in Aleppo your priorities will be nothing as you will spend all your time avoiding death. All very depressing.
"Presumably if we met I would have to call him Sir.
— david plumb
"Manners makyeth man" - William of Wykeham.
— david plumb"
Ha, ha , touche...........................................SIR!
They see good v evil, they see a saviour when all else fails, they are educated in the rights and wrongs of life, they understand the existentialism of the scenes played out to them and they are excited at the drama and wonder of it all.
A dictionary definition doesn't make it the truth and that is the whole point.
No one mentioned truth, if you do not know the difference between a definition and truth then you should keep away from forums like this.
Dictionaries should not be seen as prescriptive nor restrictive, but they are descriptive. They show the accepted ways to use words.
Again I invite you to show us an acceptable definition of god that superheroes fit into. If you cannot do that, then all of your humble opinion is self delusion.
Personally I still believe that kids and even adults are able to see these super heroes as gods or even God if they have little belief or understanding. Everyone probably needs a greater being that allows them to make sense of the world but it's probably not useful for that to be a religious version, as in God.
You are allowed to believe what ever you want, but that in no way makes me wrong nor closed minded. the burden of proof is up on you. Evidence is what will prove you point. Show us some.
They see good v evil, they see a saviour when all else fails, they are educated in the rights and wrongs of life,
No, the see a bunch of guys and women with strange costumes(mostly tight pants), with weird colors and shapes. They see people doing the things that many of them dream of doing, being strong, flying, being able to burn the nasty neighbor with a glance. But they also see the superheroes having to hide the things that they do not want others to see, just like them.
I do not think that even one person that goes to see a superhero movie would actually think of praying for Superman to come and save them from a mugger, the school bully or a tyrant boss.
And to say that people are educated in the rights and wrongs of life by a superhero movie would be similar to saying that people are educated in the customs of foreign countries by watching movies made there. Or maybe that Monty Python is good for political education.
they understand the existentialism of the scenes played out to them and they are excited at the drama and wonder of it all. Just like a religious person is about God and Jesus Christ.
I am sorry, but you really do need to explain to me how you came to that conclusion. I have no idea.
You won't understand until you get there, I guess. Most of us live sheltered lives unaware of the realities of life's underbelly and in Aleppo your priorities will be nothing as you will spend all your time avoiding death. All very depressing.
Once again, what the hell has Aleppo got to do with the price of jellybeans? What do you even know about the place? Have you been or lived there to be able to say that it will have that effect on a person?
When you say that most of us live sheltered lives, are you talking about me or yourself? If it is yourself, then it is probably understandable how you came ridiculous conclusion.
If it is about me, then I have to tell you that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about therefore it is also understandable how you came to this ridiculous conclusion.
If you are talking about you and a lot of other people that you presumable know a lot about, then all I can sat is that I am glad that I do not live in the same places as you. The people must be very depressing.
One last time, I am not going to reply unless you answer some of the questions and skip the BS.
deletedmemberdpNovember 03, 2020 at 10:08#4679680 likes
I can see you are stuck on this proof definition of yours. The proof is there but you need to "see" it first with your senses and that is a weakness. God exists and the proof is there but until you see Him with your eyes then He is not there. What if your eyes deceive you and what if you don't exist? This proof you need is akin to "the blind are not sinners". There is no proof just theories if you wish to be pedantic.
"Once again, what the hell has Aleppo got to do with the price of jellybeans?"
You do not accomplish anything in a debate just by saying that others are wrong. If you want to do something productive you have to show them why the are wrong. You have failed.
God exists and the proof is there but until you see Him with your eyes then He is not there.
Guessing you're not a pantheist, in which any agents of any pantheon could be representative/symbolic aspects of a divine unity.
[quote=Bible]I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me. (Isaiah 45:5. ESV) [/quote]
I got this quote from Jehovah Witness at my door. They asked me to read a passage out-loud with them and this part was included.
Do all Christians have a correct orientation to this one true God, even though they belong to different cults? Which cult is the best cult insofar as it mediates a proper interpretation and obeisance of God's divine will?
5
I am the Lord, and there is no other,
besides me there is no God;
I equip you, though you do not know me,
6
that people may know, from the rising of the sun
and from the west, that there is none besides me;
I am the Lord, and there is no other.
7
I form light and create darkness;
I make well-being and create calamity;
I am the Lord, who does all these things.
I think it is obvious who is to blame for how badly fucked up the world is now, he admitted it long ago.
All of the monotheists believe that they and only they worship the one true god, the rest are devil worshippers, pagans, savages and so on.
I always like to hear such things from those who profess to believe.
From the standpoint of Plumb's faith and or personal beliefs, are the Mormons headed for a reward in the afterlife as much as the Jehova's Witnesses insofar as any are righteous exemplars of their faith? Or are other Christians on the wrong path?
From the standpoint of Plumb's faith and or personal beliefs, are the Mormons headed for a reward in the afterlife as much as the Jehova's Witnesses insofar as any are righteous exemplars of their faith?
I would think that after a life of being deprived of coffee the mormons would get all they could drink in heaven. And maybe they would be allowed to enjoy some "free from guilt" sex along with the jehova's witnesses, but not as much as the muslims with their harem of virgins .
I always wondered where the virgins came from, are they made on site or is it because there are so many virgins that actually get to heaven?
They are all on the wrong path, every single one of them.
Right now we are suffering the effects of the tropical storm Eta. We have had 4 solid days of rain, There are floods all over the place. Rivers have over run, houses, roads and bridges have been destroyed. And what are the people doing? Praying for the rain to stop.
How can anyone believe in the existence of god, or that the evidence of its existence is all around us.
What kind of a fucked up being would deliberately create something like the earth and its inhabitants.
They are all on the wrong path, every single one of them.
Here's hoping that the separation of church state remains in religious folks' interest, insofar as they don't want to be subsumed/subordinate to the authoritarian governance of any one particular one brand. Can't speak for what it is like in your neck of the woods.
Right now we are suffering the effects of the tropical storm Eta. We have had 4 solid days of rain, There are floods all over the place. Rivers have over run, houses, roads and bridges have been destroyed. And what are the people doing? Praying for the rain to stop.
Prayer might help folks psychologically stabilize when they perceive to have very little control over their lives. Just watched a mini doc about kids growing up in the gang ridden districts of Honduras. Faith makes more sense to me in such situations because the most people can do is hope for good outcomes in the face of senseless violence and poverty.
Prayer might help folks psychologically stabilize when they perceive to have very little control over their lives.
Or allow them to blame everything that is wrong on the will of their god and ask for help to fix the problems they have caused. Lots of the people that have problems because of the storm here were told to evacuate with plenty of time to do so, no they prayed that someone else would be affected instead of them.
Just watched a mini doc about kids growing up in the gang ridden districts of Honduras. Faith makes more sense to me in such situations because the most people can do is hope for good outcomes in the face of senseless violence and poverty.
It always fascinated me how that works. Some of them say that joining gangs is the only way for protection, like maybe god some how would be useless even after praying. Some do it because they get a chance to be violent and for the money they make from it, and pray for forgiveness. The parents always deny that the kids have anything to with gangs while enjoying the benefits and cash of the kids and carry on praying like good catholics.
Something else that always makes me laugh is the football players that pray and cross themselves at the beginning of the game and thank god for the goals they score. Like any god would think it worthwhile to let one side win over the other.
Miguel HernándezDecember 06, 2020 at 23:57#4775470 likes
The current Hollywood super hero films - are they simply a continuation of the Gods theme that has been around for thousands of years? Reply to deletedmemberdp
I believe that superheroes have a similar function to that of the Homeric and Semitic heroes. Those in whom brute force prevails emulate Heracles (such as Hulk, the Thing ...) Those in which intelligence prevails are David type (such as Peter Parker, Reed Richards or Tony Stark ...) Mythographic forms are similar. And their social function too, because they help to integrate by providing hope. What is its original message? Anyone can become socially relevant, even if they are being bullied or their social position is marginal, thanks to chance. Alan Moore seems unable to understand beyond his fortunate social position. He doesn't understand that thousands of people need a cathartic show. Aristotle got it.
Comments (92)
It is more of a tactic to publicize the political bias of producers and the people involved.
So were gods.
Indeed...
No, not really. The gods were not just the guides of human destiny but also the creators of humanity. The super heroes do not claim anything like that.
That part would go to the alien forefathers groups.
Not much analysis necessary. I doubt that they are watching these movies looking for a god substitute anyway.
Most of the people that are influenced by the characters in these movies want to be like the heroes, they want to be more than their pitiful human life lets them be. The rest are just looking for entertainment.
Quoting david plumb
If someone has a need for a god they will worship one, but not many superheroes are believable gods even for the dumbest. They might hero worship them and even try to act like them, but how many people really try to act like a god?
The fact that lots of people watch these superheroes does in no way negate the need for religion, more over it proves the need for them. People need something to look up to, to guide and inspire them. If it was just a continuation as you state, then it would definitely point towards a need for some sort of religion.
Not much analysis necessary. I doubt that they are watching these movies looking for a god substitute anyway.
Are you being philosophical in your analysis? God protects and so do the super heroes. When you are young this can cement itself in your mind and unless you are brought up in a religious family these super heroes substitute a God that you know little about. We all need protection, government knows this. The underlying problem is that the Church is a stumbling block for government as religious people have always preferred to take instruction from the Lord which is why there is so much anti religious rhetoric out there. Get rid of religion and the people are easier to manipulate. China controls its people without much dissent.
The fact that lots of people watch these superheroes does in no way negate the need for religion, more over it proves the need for them. People need something to look up to, to guide and inspire them. If it was just a continuation as you state, then it would definitely point towards a need for some sort of religion.
That seems to analyse the situation in a religious perspective. The reality is that the bare bones of the God question is simply as a protector and no more to most people. Obviously to a religious person who has read the Scriptures thousands of times the meaning is far, far more. To reach the masses in the government needs to then society has to be dumbed down and dismantled in a Derrida way which is what has happened. Popular culture now is dominated by celebrities ( God substitutes again).
Jesus was a radical and understood the existential way in which we live. The New Covenant is evidence of that.
How young are you talking about?
If you see superman when you are maybe 5 to 10 years old you have little idea about what a god actually is. This is actually true for a lot of adults as well. What you would do is play at being him, as many kid falling of roofs trying to fly. You see him as someone to imitate, you try to act like him.
While, as you said, this can cement itself into their minds but they eventually realize that they can never become him or call on him for help because he is just a comic book or movie character.
God on the other hand can be asked for help any time you want to, and occasionally it comes.
Quoting david plumb
Your reality. With so many millions of people throughout the world worshiping gods who are the creators of everything not many view their god as a simple protector.
Quoting david plumb
You maybe right about the leaders wanting to dumb down the majority of society, but the movies are only a very small part of that. If that was to be a criteria for calling something a god, then a smartphone has a greater impact than super heroes.
If you do not hold sacred the christian god, why do you capitalize the word?
"If you do not hold sacred the Christian god, why do you capitalize the word?"
"Manners makyeth man" - William of Wykeham.
"Simples" - Aleksandr Orlov
"God on the other hand can be asked for help any time you want to, and occasionally it comes."
This is my point. God protects us and we call him when in need. The super heroes symbolise the fight against evil, a fight that always eventually ends up with good being the strongest. God is good and also creates the fight against evil within man. Subliminally or not these super heroes substitute the need for God by reverting back to having a god for every purpose. The one God seems banal in comparison.
"but the movies are only a very small part of that."
How many times in history do we overlook this kind of propaganda by dismissing it as of little or no consequence. The beginning of such moments always start subliminally and in small measure. That allows them to grow quicker in a subversive way
"Your reality. With so many millions of people throughout the world worshiping gods who are the creators of everything not many view their god as a simple protector."
"My reality" doesn't sound very philosophical as "your reality" can equally be questioned. The worshipers, in my experience, have little real understanding of God as you may have which makes them easy to control. The Catholic faith is all about Catholicism and maintaining the status quo, too many of the fundamentalists swanning around full of their own importance, berating others and totally oblivious of the hypocrisy surrounding this. Jesus was a radical in his approach to the Jewish Pharisees as they behaved in the same way.
Yes some old time rulers turned themselves into gods, power trips, but the common everyday man on the street does not do it, why not?
"If the people are so stupid that they are substituting comic book super heroes for gods then I ask again, why do they imitate and try to be super heroes but have never imitated nor tried to be gods.
Yes some old time rulers turned themselves into gods, power trips, but the common everyday man on the street does not do it, why not?"
Ok, God doesn't go around showing us that good prevails over evil in such a spectacular media driven fashion. We all have a moral base, we all need a moral base and when these morals no longer exist then evil occurs. God is not evidently there for the non believer, He is there only when you choose to see Him. Society needs this moral base obviously but as the Frankfurt School realised it is the religious way of control that hindered the spread of communism as the masses were "happy" to suffer in this life for the sake of a better life in the hereafter. Breaking down the moral tenets of the Church, highlighting for instance the hypocrisy of the clergy and introducing laws allowing gay marriage etc has allowed the liberal Left to take away the authority of the Church . The Frankfurt School left Germany and came to the US back in the thirties and have done a great job of dismantling the need for the Church and introduced a society that is intolerant to intolerance.
If so, then these current movie gods resemble the Greek, Roman and Norse gods.
If so, then these current movie gods resemble the Greek, Roman and Norse gods.
They do indeed.
Maybe Christian intolerance/corruption ironically lead to the loss of the Church's (what Church?) cultural/political authority.
So the evil of the world is now caused by the super hero movies? How does that make sense?
And the good behavior of these heroes is set as a moral base for the people that don't believe in a god?
I am beginning to think that you are making less and less sense with each post you make.
And please learn how to quote properly.
Some of the characters are actually based on them, Thor, Loke.
Great choices for a moral base no?
"Great choices for a moral base no?"
That's the whole point, Sir2u. These super heroes represent good and evil without the religious control that goes with it. Governments create fear so you feel safe when they are seen to be our protectors and the Church creates fear ( Hell and damnation) in the same way. It's all about getting away from religious control of the masses by creating a material world that recognises the here and now and not a spiritual world that recognises the here and after.
"So the evil of the world is now caused by the super hero movies? How does that make sense?
And the good behavior of these heroes is set as a moral base for the people that don't believe in a god?
I am beginning to think that you are making less and less sense with each post you make.
And please learn how to quote properly."
A closed mind is a good thing to lose.......Evil in the world is not caused by the super heroes. They are there to substitute the need for a god or gods which has opened the door for thousands of years to corrupt religious systems, systems that have hindered the rise of left wing liberalism. They are a tool amongst many to create the subliminal thought that a god or gods are on the same base level as superheroes, myths but nice thoughts. My phrasing could have been better as the superheroes are the good ones and the evil ones are the characters that represent the evil. Having re-read my response to you I guess you could presume the evil ones are also super heroes but that would miss the point of the whole process.
"So is this thread really about advocating for belief in the monotheistic God of Roman Catholicism, or any comparable Christian faith?"
No, it is about the Frankfurt School critically analysing the reason why communism didn't sweep across the world as was forecast back in the 30's. They decided that the Church ( religion per se ) had control over the masses and set about dismantling the authority of the Church. The super heroes are part of that as are many of the popular woke behaviours that challenge everything that has been accepted as gospel even after the enlightenment. God is simply a need for the masses to believe in a protector- thus the invention of super heroes who let children , in particular, realise that you don't need to believe in God to be good , or even to believe in God .
Equality doesn't matter in this life as your reward is in the next. Apologies to the religious members but this is simply about discussion, hopefully an open minded one. Quoting Sir2u
This sounds conspiratorial as if it was a project of planned intent rather than a historical accident of the spread of ideas. The complexity of factors governing historical change makes this theory sound silly. Maybe if the public didn't know how to read at all the authority of religions (Christianity/Islam?) would still properly mediate moral behavior toward a reward in an afterlife.
Quoting david plumb
For the purpose of trying to make sense of this thread can you say that this quotation is a statement of your own belief? It's somewhat dumbfounding.
Maybe it would be a good idea to lose yours then, you seem pretty convinced that you are 100% right and no matter others say you will still be right.
If one were to say that superheroes have or are taking the place of gods one would have to show some sort of evidence to back up the statements. Thus far you have failed miserable to do so.
The fact that they are popular, even among religious people, does not make then a god. If that were true then Elvis, Humphrey Bogart, and Obama are also gods.
For any being to take the place of a god would mean that it would have to fulfill the requisites of that god.
1. would have to been responsible for the creation of everything.
2. would have to be the guiding force behind the destiny of mankind
3. would have to be the moral compass of mankind's morality
4. would have to be the object of devotion/ worship of humanity
In the space below please list the Super Heroes that fulfill at least 2 of the above.
"Maybe it would be a good idea to lose yours then, you seem pretty convinced that you are 100% right and no matter others say you will still be right."
If I had a closed mind the question I asked would have been a statement. I am open to argument obviously.
"If one were to say that superheroes have or are taking the place of gods one would have to show some sort of evidence to back up the statements."
The same kind of evidence that God exists? Celebrities are also the new gods, they perform the same cultural, psychological role . God needs to disappear, his role in leading, supporting and nurturing people is over. he is no longer needed and the evidence for that is in the empty churches, the so called Christians that pay lip service to their religion. The Church's authority over anything has diminished. Would the majority of people prefer to listen to Jesus' wise mumblings or the unwise, heedless mumblings of a celebrity/media influencer?
"For any being to take the place of a god would mean that it would have to fulfill the requisites of that god.
1. would have to been responsible for the creation of everything.
2. would have to be the guiding force behind the destiny of mankind
3. would have to be the moral compass of mankind's morality
4. would have to be the object of devotion/ worship of humanity"
Again you are missing the point. You can easily create this God substitute without equally creating your points 1-4. People I know do not look at the subliminal substitute of God with points 1-4 in their head. God is points 1-4 to a fundamental Baptist no doubt but, to the guy in the street who probably only thinks about God when he is in a life threatening situation where he knows Batman etc is not going to save him, points 1-4 are irrelevant. Hopefully you will pick up on the point that, when really necessary, Batman is not really a god to most people ( god not God, of course).
Minds opened or closed...
If anyone can show me one example
In the history of the world
Of a single psychic
Who has been able to prove
Under reasonable experimental conditions
That they are able to read minds
And if anyone can show me one example
In the history of the world
Of a single astrologer
Who has been able to prove
Under reasonable experimental conditions
That they can predict future human events
By interpreting celestial signs
And if anyone can show me one example
In the history of the world
Of a single homeopathic practitioner
Who has been able to prove
Under reasonable experimental conditions
That solutions made of infinitely tiny particles of good stuff
Dissolved repeatedly into relatively huge quantities of water
Has a consistently higher medicinal value
Than a similarly-administered placebo
And if anyone can show me one example
In the history of the world
Of a single spiritual or religious person
Who has been able to prove
Either logically or empirically
The existence of a higher power
That has any consciousness or interest in the human race
Or ability to punish or reward humans for their moral choices
Or that there is any reason other than fear
To believe in any version
Of an afterlife
I will give you my piano
One of my legs
And my wife
"This sounds conspiratorial"
There is a need now, interestingly, to try and dumb down the importance of the Frankfurt School theorists. Conspiracy theory seems to have become a term of derision which, without being too conspiratorial again, also further inhibits any challenge to the new status quo.
"For the purpose of trying to make sense of this thread can you say that this quotation is a statement of your own belief? It's somewhat dumbfounding."
A belief is too strong a word to use and can be used to pigeon hole someone. When in discussion with the fundamentalists, rather than those paying lip service to their religion, there seems to be a belief that this life is a spring board to the next.
Minds opened or closed...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=RFO6ZhUW38w
If anyone can show me one example
In the history of the world
Of a single psychic
Who has been able to prove
Under reasonable experimental conditions
That they are able to read minds
And if anyone can show me one example
In the history of the world
Of a single astrologer
Who has been able to prove
Under reasonable experimental conditions
That they can predict future human events
By interpreting celestial signs
And if anyone can show me one example
In the history of the world
Of a single homeopathic practitioner
Who has been able to prove
Under reasonable experimental conditions
That solutions made of infinitely tiny particles of good stuff
Dissolved repeatedly into relatively huge quantities of water
Has a consistently higher medicinal value
Than a similarly-administered placebo
And if anyone can show me one example
In the history of the world
Of a single spiritual or religious person
Who has been able to prove
Either logically or empirically
The existence of a higher power
That has any consciousness or interest in the human race
Or ability to punish or reward humans for their moral choices
Or that there is any reason other than fear
To believe in any version
Of an afterlife
I will give you my piano
One of my legs
And my wife
Science has a lot to answer for, Mayor of Simpleton. Even science realises its limitations when it constantly updates and changes its beliefs.
Exactly... and science does this on a regular basis.
That's what is completely missing in religious belief.
Science (which is a process... it's not a belief system in an of itself) knows it doesn't know everything, as if it did know everything it would stop.
Religious lays claim to a certainty it cannot back with anything other that saying 'because it's so' and has essentially stopped investigations, as this self-assumed certainty grants them no more cause to investigate further. All you need is faith, so facts matter little and in the end religion has little to answer for.
More or less science starts with what can be observed, tests it and refines it's conclusions provided a conclusion can be drawn form the process. There is no principle in science that state the scientist need be satisfied with the results.
Religions starts with drawing the conclusion then creates 'tests' that conform to the conclusion using only that which is observed that fits the conclusion subsequently tossing out anything else observed that might come into conflict pre-assumed conclusion. In religion the believer will in the end be satisfied with the results of the loaded dice they toss about.
So which is really closed minded?
The one who knows they don't know everything or the one who decrees in all certainty a conclusion of which they have no evidence or support other than saying 'because it's so'?
"The one who knows they don't know everything or the one who decrees in all certainty a conclusion of which they have no evidence or support other than saying 'because it's so'?"
My definition of a closed mind, Mayor of Simpleton, is a mind that has made its mind up and then closes that mind to anything that may challenge the closed mind.
Consciously or unconsciously that mind may appear to open but fundamentally it has closed.
Indeed... and that sort of 'thinking' is not the realm of scientific method, but is the cornerstone of religious belief.
This is why I asked you to provide some sort of evidence. What are your reasons for thinking this? If they do not perform the cultural and psychological roles that I listed, what do they do?
So you are very closed minded in your belief the the superheroes of today are the equivalent of the gods of yesterday. Without any evidence to prove your point.
I for one definitely decline to try and prove it, I have 2 legs and I wife already. And I am tone deaf.
Is it wrong to ask you whether or not you believe in an afterlife given the statements you made in this thread and further that you'd characterize yourself as a man/woman of Christian faith? Perhaps the afterlife is really just what you'll leave behind for your sons and daughters and your neighbor's sons and daughters and your enemy's sons and daughters. In other words, the afterlife is about the lives after (or beside) yours, tribal religious identity notwithstanding.
What God movies have you been watching? I remember watching one where this guy was literally crucified and asking God for help. He didn’t help.
I remember that one, the guy hung there there for a day and died from it. Most of the others that got the same treatment stayed alive for days suffering. What a wimp.
Rewatching the scene just now I can see that I was mistaken. In my defense, it’s a musical and sometimes in musicals I get more rapped in the music than the story. I mean, does anyone remember what happens in Cats beside a catchy tune or two and that it felt kinda weird wanting to bang a hot cat-girl?
He’s ultimately heroic.
I remember sitting in the pub later an discussing the guy asking his daddy WHY he had to die while all the while implying that he had known about the whole plan from the beginning.
Thanks for the memories.
"Is it wrong to ask you whether or not you believe in an afterlife given the statements you made in this thread and further that you'd characterize yourself as a man/woman of Christian faith?"
It's irrelevant, quite frankly. Wrong seems the wrong (oops!) word to use in this instance as I am not offended by your asking.
"What God movies have you been watching? I remember watching one where this guy was literally crucified and asking God for help. He didn’t help."
That's a crucial part of the Jesus story. It answers why God appears to allow bad things to happen when he could easily not.
"I remember going to see that, we laughed so much they actually asked us to leave. That was one hell of funny film."
You laughed? Each to his own.
"This is why I asked you to provide some sort of evidence. What are your reasons for thinking this? If they do not perform the cultural and psychological roles that I listed, what do they do?"
After laughing in the Christ film I now understand why you have such a problem recognising the subliminal reasoning behind the super heroes.
Even if the Frankfurt school could be blamed for whatever historical change one dislikes, there are many other contributory forces. Maybe Capitalism itself, insofar as it must forever appeal to consumer demand in an ever increasing turn of cultural innovation, exploits human desire for profits to the point of undermining the authority of religious institutions. Things change in time even though we might love to complain about it.
Any church/government/culture (what/which?) could have outlawed television, radio and internet. Why didn't they. The Amish still don't use these things...(?)
Existential Comics: The Frankfurt Four
I doubt that you understand, because I don't have a problem recognizing subliminal reasoning that does not exist. If it did, you would be able to provide some sort of evidence of its existence. You would pint to a new temple being built to house the Spiderman cult, or the secret sect of Hulk worshipers.
But the only thing that you could possibly point to is a bunch of that go to Comic-Con events dressed as their favorite scifi character. While I agree that some of these people do go beyond reasonable obsessiveness, if you ask them about their hero being a god you will probably be laughed at.
Superheroes do not, have never, and never will take the place of gods because the do not serve the same purpose in any society. If you read a bit of history you will find that heroes and gods have lived side by side for a very long time. Some of them were heroes because they defied the gods, other because they fought for the gods, and some even stepped in to help when the gods would not.
"I don't have a problem recognizing subliminal reasoning that does not exist."
You do state the unusual quite a bit. You recognise something that doesn't exist. That is surprising. I have a real problem recognising anything that doesn't exist, for some reason I only recognise things that exist.
"You would point to a new temple being built to house the Spiderman cult, or the secret sect of Hulk worshipers"
The religious club syndrome is exactly the kind of system that needs to be abolished. Everyone can have their "god" in their own privacy where it does little harm to society. The connection between the "new gods" and the old is evident. The worship of the old God and thus the authoritarian hold over the people is waning and the new era of the super hero gods where they sit nicely in the back of peoples' minds has arrived. The hold over the masses as Orwell predicted has begun and this ignorance about the super heroes sits well with the Frankfurt School plan, I would suggest.
"Superheroes do not, have never, and never will take the place of gods because the do not serve the same purpose in any society."
Beware the intellectual lefties as they understand the value of dumbing down society and attacking those remaining that have the intelligence to challenge the new dawn. Look at it philosophically, i.e objectively for a moment, and notice the rise of the god like celebrities, action heroes, sporting icons etc.
.
"Any church/government/culture (what/which?) could have outlawed television, radio and internet. Why didn't they. The Amish still don't use these things...(?)"
Even the Amish have problems keeping their flock in order. The Church realise the problems of being religious in a secular, commercially driven world and the apologists out there do a very poor job of defending the faith. Their reaction seems to now be one of victimhood and one day the rest of the world will understood the mess they have got themselves in.
It's show business!
"It's show business!"
And show business is the wolf in a sheep's clothing. On the surface it appears like it is just good fun but in reality the subliminal message is hard to avoid and very cleverly uses the propaganda that reaches out to children's accepting, unquestioning minds.
Wasn’t it uneducated righties that helped to put a celebrity in the Oval Office in 2016?
What freaking god like characteristic does the kartrashian clan have?
What godlike quality does does David Beckham have?
They are in no way worshiped as gods.
Holy infantile conditioning Batman, he may be on to something here. :chin: :smirk:
I never knew that what made people think that the Flintstones was a pure and simple kiddies program. It is one of the best examples of subliminal conditioning that I can think of. Watch any episode and you will find messages about how adults are supposed to behave. It contains violence, sexism, crime, child rearing advice and lots of other stuff all nicely wrapped up in a kiddies TV show.
But no one counts Fred or Barney as gods.
I might now be further corrupted if I read/listen to Murray Bookchin's Social Ecology propaganda. :monkey: Close your eyes, stopper your ears. Too many voices/channels exchanging ideas.
"What freaking god like characteristic does the kartrashian clan have?
What godlike quality does does David Beckham have?"
There is such confusion. Add to the mix a lack of objectivity and philosophical understanding. Let me try to set you on the right track:
You have the colour blue. It is blue to you but to the colour blind it is not. There are also different shades of blue but to most of us blue is blue. Pedantically you may argue that the blue you are looking at is a light blue but to most people blue is a good enough description.
Transfer that to the God/super heroes question. To you God has x.y and z as you see it but to others the definition of God may not necessarily have the x,y and z as you see it but to them it is God per se.
You have anchored yourself to the constraints of an unphilosophical argument , one that has subjectively already been set in stone and are not seeing it from an alternative person's point of view. Thus you fall into the trap of being easily led to believing there is no threat to belief in God.This is the fundamentalism of the Frankfurt School.
"I've gone down the Captain Planet rabbit hole because of this thread. Damn 90s cartoons. They got me!"
Varrry eenterezting.................It is usual for someone to reduce an important discussion as this thread affords to that of derision and comedic delusion .I concur that you have lost the argument?
"I might now be further corrupted if I read/listen to Murray Bookchin's Social Ecology propaganda. :monkey: Close your eyes, stopper your ears. Too many voices/channels exchanging ideas"
This is good. You are finally seeing the light.
"But no one counts Fred or Barney as gods"
Rather absurd argument. Fred is hardly a super hero. He constantly tries to outwit his wife and usually gets caught out. Maybe he's a hero to Barney Rubble but not a super hero to anyone. There are subtle nuances in the God like super hero arguments but this is not one of them.
"Wasn’t it uneducated righties that helped to put a celebrity in the Oval Office in 2016?"
Sadly that was simply a reaction to the reactionary left. The left are still a long way from achieving their aims but, to be fair to them, they seem to be in it for the long term and short term hiccoughs seem to spur them on. Super heroes alone won't achieve their aims and they know that.
Maybe your bugaboo is to be made by a parallel of social justice aspect of superheros and this somehow translates to a "dangerous" or misguided activism of a social justice movement now. Superheros might satisfy a power fantasy of those who have little agency. Though one could just as well be anesthetized by the consumer products of television (or any media art) in which the fantasy of superheros (or Fred and Barney) is just escapist entertainment.
Even the North Koreans risk watching Western media via thumb drives. Not sure any amount of superhero movies is gonna make them risk their lives for social change.
I’m currently rather fond of a series called “The Boys.” The boys are a ragtag group of malcontents who’s intent is to kill-off all the superheroes. They’re anti-superhero heroes, essentially. Those elite Hollywood righties really know how to give a good mind fuck.
Ha!
This inversion is interesting. The superheros as loved by the public are deeply corrupt figures who have a public persona (celebrity) geared toward manipulation in service of their private lives. The outward persona is the public superhero which belies what they actually are, supervillans.
The same relationship is at play. The heros are mortals with exceptional qualities (perseverance, skill, moral sense) who seek to eliminate the unjust tyranny of gods. The Boys (the group) have all been deeply harmed by the powers that be and this motivates their collaboration toward acts of justice.
Perhaps this is evidence to support to the Plumb theory then, superheroes being super-leftist-villains. On the other hand, the top superhero is called Homelander and supports a xenophobic agenda making him a super-righty-villain. The Hollywood Lefty Elite is super insidious.
Quoting david plumb
So then to make it easier on you, provide some evidence that others are using your definition of god instead of most common, standard, sited in every dictionary definition that everyone else uses.
GOD
1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. "a moon god"
The super heroes of the movies do not even fit in the second category, because no no worships them as having any power over anything at all. They have no effect on peoples everyday lives such as the rain gods are supposed to have.
The fact that the State is using the movies to mind wash the idiots just as they have done with the churches for centuries speaks more to the stupidity of the people than the astuteness of the people running the State.
Supermarket commercials do as much in controlling the masses as any superhero movie does. Do you remember the commercials for cigarettes and booze back in the 60's and 70's, so many people would have thought those actors were gods according to your definition.
If you can do nothing more about proving any of the statements you have made by showing some examples of just how people consider the movies super heroes as gods when they sit down to watch a Superman movie after church on Sunday then I have nothing more to discuss.
"So your whole argument comes down to the fact that you have changed the meaning of god"
You do like to dumb it all down to the smallest common denominator. Your interpretation of God is your interpretation of God, nothing more and nothing less. Equally you are what I say you are, you are what someone else says you are but you would, naturally due to the subjective manner of your thought processes, say you are what you say you are. There is no getting away with the fact that you are what I say you are. Take for example that someone thinks I am a simpleton but I think I am a genius-in their world I am a simpleton and thus it remains, definition closed with me the simpleton.
"So then to make it easier on you, provide some evidence that others are using your definition of god instead of most common, standard, sited in every dictionary definition that everyone else uses"
Therein lies the problem. You are in a cul de sac of swarming confusion. On the one hand you accept the propaganda with regards to commercials, the subliminal way in which they tell you how glamorous it is to smoke without telling you how bad smoking is for your health. The propaganda is so entrenched that smoking adverts were banned and the government have used all kinds of ways to prevent the active participation of smoking. .
"If you can do nothing more about proving any of the statements you have made by showing some examples of just how people consider the movies super heroes as gods when they sit down to watch a Superman movie after church on Sunday then I have nothing more to discuss."
"I have nothing more to discuss"- best to continue the subjective ,as I see it/ objective as you see it way of thinking. A closed mind is a trapped mind. Proof that God exists is there for all to see unless you rely solely on your senses. Proof is not a simple process of scientific data.
"Maybe your bugaboo is to be made by a parallel of social justice aspect of superheros and this somehow translates to a "dangerous" or misguided activism of a social justice movement now. Superheros might satisfy a power fantasy of those who have little agency. Though one could just as well be anesthetized by the consumer products of television (or any media art) in which the fantasy of superheros (or Fred and Barney) is just escapist entertainment.
Even the North Koreans risk watching Western media via thumb drives. Not sure any amount of superhero movies is gonna make them risk their lives for social change"
That makes a lot of sense. In an Orwellian way it seems control is easy to achieve without the need to be violent. The intelligentsia need to mask this intelligence as controlling them is difficult.
I don’t think anyone would argue that politicians, ad agencies, think tanks, etc., don’t effectively manipulate the public. What’s unclear is how superheroes in popular culture have usurped God, and if this is the case, and the coup d’état was executed by liberals, how liberalism or a liberal agenda is promoted via the superhero franchise. An explanation of that would be interesting.
From what I remember of the last superhero movie that I watched, the super-villain, I think his name was Thanos, was basically an overzealous ecologist who wanted to half the universal population in the interest of sustainability. The super-heroes fought for a more conservative approach and were vehemently against Thanos's super-radical progressivism. So if anything it seems like conservatism is being championed in this story.
He does not have one, the only way that he could explain it is by saying that the word god has a new definition and that unless you believe him you are closed minded. He does not even have the new definition of god to give us.
Quoting david plumb
This worries me, he believes that "God", with a capital G exists. What doe that tell us about him?
He's religious, is somewhat concerning to others, and has some grammar skillz.
"He does not have one, the only way that he could explain it is by saying that the word god has a new definition and that unless you believe him you are closed minded. He does not even have the new definition of god to give us"
Interesting that you talk about a new definition of God as though your knowledge is the correct one. From what I can see so far your definition is a simple one, one that sits well with those that need the conclusions to fit in with their closed mind perceptions. Clear your mind of pre-conditioned bias and open your mind to the possibilities.
"This worries me, he believes that "God", with a capital G exists. What does that tell us about him?"
This worries you? That seems a tad primitive. A day in Aleppo would sort the cobwebs out for you, nay make that an hour.
When you ask "what does that tell us about him" I am surprised that you need to ask. I will now wander the corridors asking myself if Australia exists as I have never been there.
"He's religious, is somewhat concerning to others, and has some grammar skillz.
Let's hope your summation helps Sir2u. Presumably if we met I would have to call him Sir.
Seriously, there are several definitions of what a god is. If you look in several dictionaries you will probably be able to find most of those definition. The dictionaries help us to define the properties of a god, so that we can decide whether something would fit into that category.
For example, if you look up the word "chair" you would find several different definitions. What is common to all of those definitions is that they list the types and properties of a chair.
1. A seat for one person, with a support for the back
2. The position of professor
3. The officer who presides at the meetings of an organization
4. An instrument of execution by electrocution; resembles an ordinary seat for one person
5. A particular seat in an orchestra
So if I call the thing that my backside is resting upon a "chair" then surely it would be expected to fit into one of these definitions.
If the thing I am sitting on does not have a back then it does not fit into the first definition so I must either find another name for it or continue to demonstrate my ignorance by calling it a chair still.
While it is common for people to use words incorrectly and for the words to change their meaning if enough people actually continue to use it in a certain way. A really good explanation of this is given here.
The Secret Life of Words:
English Words
and Their Origins
Anne Curzan, Ph.D.
It is really well done, but she has a bad habit of pausing before the last word of the sentence. There are several others that I can recommend and if you are interested I might be able to provide for you.
But there are some words that cannot have their meanings changed without losing the principle significance of the word.
What would happen if people started calling trees "livewood"? The word is obviously correct in its concoction and connotation. But it removes an essential part of the societies concept of the object. People hear or say "tree" and the image of greenery, shade, woods and forests comes to mind. Live would does not do that and probably never will. I seriously doubt the idea that people even over a long time will start calling trees by any other name.
So tree, chair, god have many definitions. But those definitions exist because they are the accepted uses of the words by the society that uses them. And they are written in dictionaries as guides to there usage.
[b]You are trying to put a square peg into a round hole. Show us anywhere there is an acceptable definition that your use of "superheroes" fits into.
If you cannot do this then it is obvious that you are changing the definition to suite your purpose.[/b]
Quoting david plumb
Yes it worries me, fanatics are often the cause of great strife to societies. And confused fanatics that write God with a capital G and then say that superheroes are the new gods would probably be worse.
It is strange that you mention Allepo, do you live there or have you been there? How or in what way do you think that it would remove the cobwebs from my mind? Allepo had serious problems, a lot of them cause by religious factors. Maybe they need to change to superheroes.
I am not up to date about they situation there as I tend to spend more time observing what is happening in the place I live. It had the highest murder rate in the world for several years. The highest violent death rate for a non-combatant area.
Quoting david plumb
Quoting david plumb :smirk:
"Seriously, there are several definitions of what a god is. If you look in several dictionaries you will probably be able to find most of those definition. The dictionaries help us to define the properties of a god, so that we can decide whether something would fit into that category."
A dictionary definition doesn't make it the truth and that is the whole point.
"So if I call the thing that my backside is resting upon a "chair" then surely it would be expected to fit into one of these definitions"
Obviously we can't all go wandering around pondering about definitions otherwise nothing would get done. The word God is not something that you can just define in the simplistic fashion you are attempting. I do bow to the musing that these super heroes are more Norse god types than God himself but, as you are intimating, the problem lies with the interpretations. Personally I still believe that kids and even adults are able to see these super heroes as gods or even God if they have little belief or understanding. Everyone probably needs a greater being that allows them to make sense of the world but it's probably not useful for that to be a religious version, as in God.
"But those definitions exist because they are the accepted uses of the words by the society that uses them."
Pass me the smelling salts- I agree with you at last.
"You are trying to put a square peg into a round hole. Show us anywhere there is an acceptable definition that your use of "superheroes" fits into."
This is where you are going wrong, in my humble opinion. The behaviour of those "worshipping" ( feel free to misunderstand this vital phrase) is similar to those who worship gods or God. They see good v evil, they see a saviour when all else fails, they are educated in the rights and wrongs of life, they understand the existentialism of the scenes played out to them and they are excited at the drama and wonder of it all. Just like a religious person is about God and Jesus Christ.
"How or in what way do you think that it would remove the cobwebs from my mind?"
You won't understand until you get there, I guess. Most of us live sheltered lives unaware of the realities of life's underbelly and in Aleppo your priorities will be nothing as you will spend all your time avoiding death. All very depressing.
"Presumably if we met I would have to call him Sir.
— david plumb
"Manners makyeth man" - William of Wykeham.
— david plumb"
Ha, ha , touche...........................................SIR!
[s]Super[/s]hero with a thousand faces.
No one mentioned truth, if you do not know the difference between a definition and truth then you should keep away from forums like this.
Dictionaries should not be seen as prescriptive nor restrictive, but they are descriptive. They show the accepted ways to use words.
Again I invite you to show us an acceptable definition of god that superheroes fit into. If you cannot do that, then all of your humble opinion is self delusion.
Quoting david plumb
You are allowed to believe what ever you want, but that in no way makes me wrong nor closed minded. the burden of proof is up on you. Evidence is what will prove you point. Show us some.
Quoting david plumb
Just a couple of examples, not possible situations but something that is actually happening in the world would be nice to see.
Quoting david plumb
No, the see a bunch of guys and women with strange costumes(mostly tight pants), with weird colors and shapes. They see people doing the things that many of them dream of doing, being strong, flying, being able to burn the nasty neighbor with a glance. But they also see the superheroes having to hide the things that they do not want others to see, just like them.
I do not think that even one person that goes to see a superhero movie would actually think of praying for Superman to come and save them from a mugger, the school bully or a tyrant boss.
And to say that people are educated in the rights and wrongs of life by a superhero movie would be similar to saying that people are educated in the customs of foreign countries by watching movies made there. Or maybe that Monty Python is good for political education.
Quoting david plumb
I am sorry, but you really do need to explain to me how you came to that conclusion. I have no idea.
Quoting david plumb
Once again, what the hell has Aleppo got to do with the price of jellybeans? What do you even know about the place? Have you been or lived there to be able to say that it will have that effect on a person?
When you say that most of us live sheltered lives, are you talking about me or yourself? If it is yourself, then it is probably understandable how you came ridiculous conclusion.
If it is about me, then I have to tell you that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about therefore it is also understandable how you came to this ridiculous conclusion.
If you are talking about you and a lot of other people that you presumable know a lot about, then all I can sat is that I am glad that I do not live in the same places as you. The people must be very depressing.
One last time, I am not going to reply unless you answer some of the questions and skip the BS.
"No one mentioned truth,"
I did............
"if you do not know the difference between a definition and truth"
I do but you clearly don't. You need to see beyond mere definitions, norms etc in order to see the subliminal happening.
"You are allowed to believe what ever you want"
Thank you, Sir.
I can see you are stuck on this proof definition of yours. The proof is there but you need to "see" it first with your senses and that is a weakness. God exists and the proof is there but until you see Him with your eyes then He is not there. What if your eyes deceive you and what if you don't exist? This proof you need is akin to "the blind are not sinners". There is no proof just theories if you wish to be pedantic.
"Once again, what the hell has Aleppo got to do with the price of jellybeans?"
Perspective.
" skip the BS."
As you see it presumably, Sir.
You do not accomplish anything in a debate just by saying that others are wrong. If you want to do something productive you have to show them why the are wrong. You have failed.
Guessing you're not a pantheist, in which any agents of any pantheon could be representative/symbolic aspects of a divine unity.
[quote=Bible]I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me. (Isaiah 45:5. ESV) [/quote]
I got this quote from Jehovah Witness at my door. They asked me to read a passage out-loud with them and this part was included.
Do all Christians have a correct orientation to this one true God, even though they belong to different cults? Which cult is the best cult insofar as it mediates a proper interpretation and obeisance of God's divine will?
5
I am the Lord, and there is no other,
besides me there is no God;
I equip you, though you do not know me,
6
that people may know, from the rising of the sun
and from the west, that there is none besides me;
I am the Lord, and there is no other.
7
I form light and create darkness;
I make well-being and create calamity;
I am the Lord, who does all these things.
I think it is obvious who is to blame for how badly fucked up the world is now, he admitted it long ago.
Quoting Nils Loc
All of the monotheists believe that they and only they worship the one true god, the rest are devil worshippers, pagans, savages and so on.
I always like to hear such things from those who profess to believe.
From the standpoint of Plumb's faith and or personal beliefs, are the Mormons headed for a reward in the afterlife as much as the Jehova's Witnesses insofar as any are righteous exemplars of their faith? Or are other Christians on the wrong path?
I would think that after a life of being deprived of coffee the mormons would get all they could drink in heaven. And maybe they would be allowed to enjoy some "free from guilt" sex along with the jehova's witnesses, but not as much as the muslims with their harem of virgins .
I always wondered where the virgins came from, are they made on site or is it because there are so many virgins that actually get to heaven?
Quoting Nils Loc
They are all on the wrong path, every single one of them.
Right now we are suffering the effects of the tropical storm Eta. We have had 4 solid days of rain, There are floods all over the place. Rivers have over run, houses, roads and bridges have been destroyed. And what are the people doing? Praying for the rain to stop.
How can anyone believe in the existence of god, or that the evidence of its existence is all around us.
What kind of a fucked up being would deliberately create something like the earth and its inhabitants.
Here's hoping that the separation of church state remains in religious folks' interest, insofar as they don't want to be subsumed/subordinate to the authoritarian governance of any one particular one brand. Can't speak for what it is like in your neck of the woods.
Quoting Sir2u
Prayer might help folks psychologically stabilize when they perceive to have very little control over their lives. Just watched a mini doc about kids growing up in the gang ridden districts of Honduras. Faith makes more sense to me in such situations because the most people can do is hope for good outcomes in the face of senseless violence and poverty.
Or allow them to blame everything that is wrong on the will of their god and ask for help to fix the problems they have caused. Lots of the people that have problems because of the storm here were told to evacuate with plenty of time to do so, no they prayed that someone else would be affected instead of them.
Quoting Nils Loc
It always fascinated me how that works. Some of them say that joining gangs is the only way for protection, like maybe god some how would be useless even after praying. Some do it because they get a chance to be violent and for the money they make from it, and pray for forgiveness. The parents always deny that the kids have anything to with gangs while enjoying the benefits and cash of the kids and carry on praying like good catholics.
Something else that always makes me laugh is the football players that pray and cross themselves at the beginning of the game and thank god for the goals they score. Like any god would think it worthwhile to let one side win over the other.
I believe that superheroes have a similar function to that of the Homeric and Semitic heroes. Those in whom brute force prevails emulate Heracles (such as Hulk, the Thing ...) Those in which intelligence prevails are David type (such as Peter Parker, Reed Richards or Tony Stark ...) Mythographic forms are similar. And their social function too, because they help to integrate by providing hope. What is its original message? Anyone can become socially relevant, even if they are being bullied or their social position is marginal, thanks to chance. Alan Moore seems unable to understand beyond his fortunate social position. He doesn't understand that thousands of people need a cathartic show. Aristotle got it.