"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.

They’re anti-superhero heroes, essentially. — praxis

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.

-deleted-

So your whole argument comes down to the fact that you have changed the meaning of god.

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. — 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.

@david plumb

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.

An explanation of that would be interesting. — praxis

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.

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. — david plumb

This worries me, he believes that "God", with a capital G exists. What doe that tell us about him?

This worries me, he believes that "God", with a capital G exists. What does that tell us about him? — Sir2u

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.

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. — david plumb

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.

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.

This worries you? That seems a tad primitive. A day in Aleppo would sort the cobwebs out for you, nay make that an hour. — 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.

Presumably if we met I would have to call him Sir. — david plumb

"Manners makyeth man" - William of Wykeham. — 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!

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. — david plumb

Superhero with a thousand faces.

A dictionary definition doesn't make it the truth and that is the whole point. — david plumb

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. — 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.

The behaviour of those "worshipping" ( feel free to misunderstand this vital phrase) is similar to those who worship gods or God. — david plumb

Just a couple of examples, not possible situations but something that is actually happening in the world would be nice to see.

They see good v evil, they see a saviour when all else fails, they are educated in the rights and wrongs of life, — 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.

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. — david plumb

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. — 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.

Yeah, whatever. :smirk:

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. — david plumb

Guessing you're not a pantheist, in which any agents of any pantheon could be representative/symbolic aspects of a divine unity.

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) — Bible

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?

It actually gets better farther down.

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.

Do all Christians have a correct orientation to this one true God, even though they belong to different cults? — 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.

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. — Sir2u

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? — Nils Loc

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?

Or are other Christians on the wrong path? — 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.

They are all on the wrong path, every single one of them. — Sir2u

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. — 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.