This theory has been going around online for a couple of days. According to a certain fan theory, TDK's Joker is not the villain, but in fact the real hero of the movie. The arguments are that he is trying to clean up Gotham City, not trying to destroy it.
Source: http://moviepilot.com/posts/2015/08/30/the-hero-gotham-needed-heath-ledger-s-joker-might-not-have-been-the-villain-in-the-dark-knight-3508911?lt_source=external,manual,manual
In my opinion, this theory is complete nonsense, and it goes to show that whoever dreamed this up didn't pay attention to the film at all. I don't want to dwell on it too much right now so I'll just say this: anyone who thought that the criminals refusing to blow up the other boat was exactly what the Joker intended should just stop watching films altogether. Bloody hell.
I agree.
God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!
Agreed too. Joker is not a hero, he can be really entertaining and even charismatic, but he will always be a villain in every sense of the word.
The way he frames his argument makes it hard to argue against him. The people the Joker killed were either scumbags or else symbols of corruption such as Commissioner Loeb, Rachel and others. It's fun to think about if nothing else.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 3 Sep 2015, 22:56
The way he frames his argument makes it hard to argue against him. The people the Joker killed were either scumbags or else symbols of corruption such as Commissioner Loeb, Rachel and others. It's fun to think about if nothing else.
But you can easily argue the same thing for the B89 Joker. It could be said that Nicholson's Joker was the hero of the film and he was far more successful than Batman in purging corruption because he shot a corrupt cop, took down organised crime bosses, dismantled the mob, and was trying to purge greedy people from society. But it would be incredibly foolish to say any of that because:
A) Joker is a mass-murdering psycho who is trying to poison the whole town to death, and;
B) his murdering of the innocent Waynes led to Bruce becoming Batman. Yes, the Joker might've fooled the idiotic public into thinking that he was innocent and Batman is the real menace during the TV broadcast, but the audience knows better. It would be too neglectful for anyone to overlook these facts.
It's the same thing with TDK's Joker. Yes, he murdered mobsters, but he also killed people like Rachel, who was still innocent regardless if she worked in a corrupt system. Let's face it, anyone who thinks the Joker would have wanted for Gotham City to restore peace in the end would have to be a moron, and completely missed the point of what he was trying to accomplish in his outrageous corruption of Harvey Dent.
Sorry for being a killjoy, but I can't stand it when people make brainless theories like in that blog.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 4 Sep 2015, 09:54But you can easily argue the same thing for the B89 Joker. It could be said that Nicholson's Joker was the hero of the film and he was far more successful than Batman in purging corruption because he shot a corrupt cop, took down organised crime bosses, dismantled the mob, and was trying to purge greedy people from society. But it would be incredibly foolish to say any of that because:
A) Joker is a mass-murdering psycho who is trying to poison the whole town to death, and;
B) his murdering of the innocent Waynes led to Bruce becoming Batman. Yes, the Joker might've fooled the idiotic public into thinking that he was innocent and Batman is the real menace during the TV broadcast, but the audience knows better. It would be too neglectful for anyone to overlook these facts.
It's the same thing with TDK's Joker. Yes, he murdered mobsters, but he also killed people like Rachel, who was still innocent regardless if she worked in a corrupt system. Let's face it, anyone who thinks the Joker would have wanted for Gotham City to restore peace in the end would have to be a moron, and completely missed the point of what he was trying to accomplish in his outrageous corruption of Harvey Dent.
Sorry for being a killjoy, but I can't stand it when people make brainless theories like in that blog.
We saw that Joker's beginnings. He started off as a mobster himself, got double-crossed and then sought revenge on his ex-boss. He wanted to take over Grissom's operations anyway. Killing Grissom was a means to an end.
He then whacked the other mob bosses (A) because they were loyal to Grissom and (B) they're competition either way. He then took over operating crime in the city under his own umbrella.
Meanwhile the Joker in TDK eliminated the mob bosses but made no effort to replace them himself. The very closest he came was saying "this city deserves a better class of criminal, and I'm gonna give it to them". He then puts a plan in motion designed to protect Batman's secret identity. So one so inclined could believe that he wanted Batman to be viewed by the city as a criminal even though he knew Batman was a hero. Batman's a better class of criminal than the mob bosses the Ledgeker was laying waste to.
The ambiguity behind the Ledgker's motivations and history are precisely what allow that silly theory to have some ring of logic. We know exactly what motivated Nicholson's Joker and nobody could credibly argue he was a hero at all, much less a better hero than the Batman.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 5 Sep 2015, 20:18
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 4 Sep 2015, 09:54But you can easily argue the same thing for the B89 Joker. It could be said that Nicholson's Joker was the hero of the film and he was far more successful than Batman in purging corruption because he shot a corrupt cop, took down organised crime bosses, dismantled the mob, and was trying to purge greedy people from society. But it would be incredibly foolish to say any of that because:
A) Joker is a mass-murdering psycho who is trying to poison the whole town to death, and;
B) his murdering of the innocent Waynes led to Bruce becoming Batman. Yes, the Joker might've fooled the idiotic public into thinking that he was innocent and Batman is the real menace during the TV broadcast, but the audience knows better. It would be too neglectful for anyone to overlook these facts.
It's the same thing with TDK's Joker. Yes, he murdered mobsters, but he also killed people like Rachel, who was still innocent regardless if she worked in a corrupt system. Let's face it, anyone who thinks the Joker would have wanted for Gotham City to restore peace in the end would have to be a moron, and completely missed the point of what he was trying to accomplish in his outrageous corruption of Harvey Dent.
Sorry for being a killjoy, but I can't stand it when people make brainless theories like in that blog.
We saw that Joker's beginnings. He started off as a mobster himself, got double-crossed and then sought revenge on his ex-boss. He wanted to take over Grissom's operations anyway. Killing Grissom was a means to an end.
He then whacked the other mob bosses (A) because they were loyal to Grissom and (B) they're competition either way. He then took over operating crime in the city under his own umbrella.
Meanwhile the Joker in TDK eliminated the mob bosses but made no effort to replace them himself. The very closest he came was saying "this city deserves a better class of criminal, and I'm gonna give it to them". He then puts a plan in motion designed to protect Batman's secret identity. So one so inclined could believe that he wanted Batman to be viewed by the city as a criminal even though he knew Batman was a hero. Batman's a better class of criminal than the mob bosses the Ledgeker was laying waste to.
The ambiguity behind the Ledgker's motivations and history are precisely what allow that silly theory to have some ring of logic. We know exactly what motivated Nicholson's Joker and nobody could credibly argue he was a hero at all, much less a better hero than the Batman.
We know what motivated Ledgers Joker. He wanted chaos. He says that. He murderers an innocent woman and psychologically twists an emotionally broken man into madness. He tries to get ships of criminals and civilians to blow eachother up or he'll blow them both up. He doesn't try to make batman look like a criminal. He dresses civilians to look like his criminals. He's a clear bad guy.
God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!
I think Ledger put in a fine performance, but in terms of threat Bane was the more effective villain. He targeted the people head on whereas The Joker had specific targets. Let's look at Bane:
He hit the stock exchange and bankrupted Bruce Wayne.
He bashed Batman in combat and locked him up.
He cut Gotham off from the mainland and held it to ransom with a nuclear bomb.
He trapped all the police in the sewers and replaced them with his Blackgate prisoners and Tumblers.
Had the rich and powerful's killed, their property destroyed and others put on trial.
The Joker's masterpiece was Harvey Dent. Sure, people may have been worried. But the rest of his crimes didn't really affect the public at large. He kills a Batman imposter, sure. But really, those people had to expect risk in their behaviour. They did put a target on their back by taking up arms and going out at night.
I don't think people would care much if the mob was taken down, or Lau burned alive with all the cash. And yes, Joker blows up a hospital. But he gives them plenty of time to evacuate, so he pretty much just destroys an empty building. Bane on the other hand destroyed a football field without warning, taking down many players.
The ferry incident is where The Joker first targets common people. But even then, he gave them the power to save themselves by killing the criminals. Bane, on the other hand, gave people effectively no hope at all. He's effectively goading people to take control of a city which is being patrolled by militia, and with a nuclear warhead driving around.
Good luck.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 11 Sep 2015, 09:08
I think Ledger put in a fine performance, but in terms of threat Bane was the more effective villain. He targeted the people head on whereas The Joker had specific targets. Let's look at Bane:
He hit the stock exchange and bankrupted Bruce Wayne.
He bashed Batman in combat and locked him up.
He cut Gotham off from the mainland and held it to ransom with a nuclear bomb.
He trapped all the police in the sewers and replaced them with his Blackgate prisoners and Tumblers.
Had the rich and powerful's killed, their property destroyed and others put on trial.
The Joker's masterpiece was Harvey Dent. Sure, people may have been worried. But the rest of his crimes didn't really affect the public at large. He kills a Batman imposter, sure. But really, those people had to expect risk in their behaviour. They did put a target on their back by taking up arms and going out at night.
I don't think people would care much if the mob was taken down, or Lau burned alive with all the cash. And yes, Joker blows up a hospital. But he gives them plenty of time to evacuate, so he pretty much just destroys an empty building. Bane on the other hand destroyed a football field without warning, taking down many players.
The ferry incident is where The Joker first targets common people. But even then, he gave them the power to save themselves by killing the criminals. Bane, on the other hand, gave people effectively no hope at all. He's effectively goading people to take control of a city which is being patrolled by militia, and with a nuclear warhead driving around.
Good luck.
The joker's threat status isn't what the issue is. He's a bad guy. He was gonna blow them both up if one didn't choose. He makes the innocent people look like the criminals.
God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!
Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 7 Sep 2015, 03:47We know what motivated Ledgers Joker.
We do? Excellent! I must have missed it so please tell me his real name, how he truly got those scars, how he knew his way around the security at the mob bank and also how he hired the bank team at the beginning of the movie.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 7 Sep 2015, 03:47He wanted chaos.
[/quote]Oh, sorry, I thought you meant he was developed the exact same way that Jack Napier was. So basically we don't know 1/16th as much about the Ledgker as we do about Napier. Got it.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 14 Sep 2015, 02:06We do? Excellent! I must have missed it so please tell me his real name, how he truly got those scars, how he knew his way around the security at the mob bank and also how he hired the bank team at the beginning of the movie.
Oh, sorry, I thought you meant he was developed the exact same way that Jack Napier was. So basically we don't know 1/16th as much about the Ledgker as we do about Napier. Got it.
Knowing more about their origin isn't knowing their motivation really. Learning about Jack's background doesn't emphasize his current motivations. It tells use what he can do. But that doesn't develop his motive more Ledger's does. But a developed background doesn't assist the current characterization in any way but to emphasize his past to explain the character's current characterization.
God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!
Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 14 Sep 2015, 04:37
Knowing more about their origin isn't knowing their motivation really. Learning about Jack's background doesn't emphasize his current motivations. It tells use what he can do. But that doesn't develop his motive more Ledger's does. But a developed background doesn't assist the current characterization in any way but to emphasize his past to explain the character's current characterization.
I disagree. Jack was vain before his transformation, and afterwards he wanted to scar all beauty - to make it like himself. Be it artwork or Grissom's mistress. His past well and truly determined his future characterization.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 14 Sep 2015, 07:07
Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 14 Sep 2015, 04:37
Knowing more about their origin isn't knowing their motivation really. Learning about Jack's background doesn't emphasize his current motivations. It tells use what he can do. But that doesn't develop his motive more Ledger's does. But a developed background doesn't assist the current characterization in any way but to emphasize his past to explain the character's current characterization.
I disagree. Jack was vain before his transformation, and afterwards he wanted to scar all beauty - to make it like himself. Be it artwork or Grissom's mistress. His past well and truly determined his future characterization.
I was talking about his background, not what we learn about him in the present day of the movie. That's characterization in the film. That seems a little lame to me.
God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!
I thought the entire theme of Dark Knight was chaos against structure and how personal motive is often the only defining mechanism that contrasts the two. The Joker essentially exposes the weaknesses of everyone on the playing field, (from rival mobsters to the police/Batman) and uses their reasoning systems against themselves.
From the opening sequence the Joker understood better than the criminals themselves, there is no code of loyalty amongst thieves. So throughout the bank robbery sequence you see thugs turn on one another based on what each believes is another ulterior motive. What none of them realize is the Joker is simply having them dispose of one another so he can take the sum total of money as a presumed position of strength. He uses this philosophy to disrupt and break apart the higher crime bosses in the network.
He then infiltrates the police force by identifying the weakest links who are in need or simply on the take to establish an insider perspective which allows him to stay one step ahead. Batman is a fairly easy target because of his reputation for protecting the innocent while not killing anyone in the process. The Joker see's his weakness and exploits it to try and expose his true identity. I never felt this was a very strong story point since the very purpose of Batman is to fight the battles Bruce Wayne can't fight in his public position, thereby eliminating traditional accountability. I couldn't see him surrendering his identity since he should instinctively understand the motive is only to reveal Batman, not to stop the murders which would become ten fold without his presence. I thought Nolan played Wayne more than a little too naïve there. But I digress.
When the Joker kills the top mobster by setting him ablaze on top of a mountain of stolen money, this eliminates another motive for police to follow which is financial gain. The Joker then begins playing his hand with the insiders to disrupt and weaken the confidence of the police force. Once again, the Joker is revisiting a familiar tool by using the collective's since of structure and trust to allow him to weaken them and eliminate them from the picture. He creates chaos by exposing traders within their group. Where he ultimately fails is in presuming he can betray and trick the human spirit. He believes he can get the people trapped on both boats to destroy themselves by suggesting this is necessary to preserve life for the other. Ultimately he is defeated by the misunderstanding that people can and do sacrifice for the common good of all, and not just for themselves. It's the one structure he is unable to overcome which takes him off guard and allows Batman to intervene and defeat him.
The Joker was never a wanna-be hero in this. He set out to prove that the sense of structure people create for themselves is nothing more than a false front to cover the real pursuit which is personal gratification. He believed anyone could be bought or compromised if you exposed them to a choice of what they really wanted. He was wrong. There ARE people out there that make sacrifices that service only the common good of others, which ironically defines the existence of his arch rival - Batman.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 15:41
The Joker was never a wanna-be hero in this. He set out to prove that the sense of structure people create for themselves is nothing more than a false front to cover the real pursuit which is personal gratification. He believed anyone could be bought or compromised if you exposed them to a choice of what they really wanted. He was wrong. There ARE people out there that make sacrifices that service only the common good of others, which ironically defines the existence of his arch rival - Batman.
If by sacrifice - you mean Batman taking the fall to prevent people from getting devastated over what Dent did, then no, I don't agree.
It's one thing for a film to give us an impossibly idealistic scenario that shows all people are good, but I hate the mixed message the ending of this film makes. Don't show one moment of ugly human behavior i.e. people caving into Joker's demands by trying to kill Reese, but then expect me to believe a completely unrealistic scenario of citizens and convicts refusing to kill each other when their lives are in danger. And don't expect me to embrace Batman telling a lie that undermines his belief that people can persevere by covering up Dent's crimes. If people are willing to believe in good, and they just proved what Batman has been saying throughout that boat scene, then they can cope with the news that Dent became a psychopath. Otherwise, I guess Batman deep down agrees with Joker's bleak view on human nature after all?
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 16 Oct 2015, 10:49
Quote from: Wayne49 on Wed, 14 Oct 2015, 15:41
The Joker was never a wanna-be hero in this. He set out to prove that the sense of structure people create for themselves is nothing more than a false front to cover the real pursuit which is personal gratification. He believed anyone could be bought or compromised if you exposed them to a choice of what they really wanted. He was wrong. There ARE people out there that make sacrifices that service only the common good of others, which ironically defines the existence of his arch rival - Batman.
If by sacrifice - you mean Batman taking the fall to prevent people from getting devastated over what Dent did, then no, I don't agree.
It's one thing for a film to give us an impossibly idealistic scenario that shows all people are good, but I hate the mixed message the ending of this film makes. Don't show one moment of ugly human behavior i.e. people caving into Joker's demands by trying to kill Reese, but then expect me to believe a completely unrealistic scenario of citizens and convicts refusing to kill each other when their lives are in danger. And don't expect me to embrace Batman telling a lie that undermines his belief that people can persevere by covering up Dent's crimes. If people are willing to believe in good, and they just proved what Batman has been saying throughout that boat scene, then they can cope with the news that Dent became a psychopath. Otherwise, I guess Batman deep down agrees with Joker's bleak view on human nature after all?
I completely understand where you're coming from and indeed Nolan gets himself in trouble with the boat sequence because, to me, self preservation is a human being's most natural instinct. Having one boat loaded with criminals only drives that point home further since their chosen lot in life was to be selfish. You'll get no disagreement with me there.
But I think what Nolan was trying to do with Batman's cover-up of Dent was circumvent the intended purpose the Joker had for the public. Remember, the Joker got to Dent at his weakest moment. The Joker exposed that by taking his loss and turning it into revenge. That's a fairly common human emotion and I agree with how that played out. Dent's collapse was very circumstantial to the Joker's influence. But you know that was not HIM. The Joker was trying to use Dent's moment of angst and grief to tell the city that he was NEVER well intended, impacting the city's trust in it's leaders and ability to rebuild itself. The Joker wanted chaos by telling everyone they were no good. Batman was saying there is good, but you have to believe. So I think on principle he was not being a hypocrite in taking that direction.
But you are absolutely right. Nolan often trips over himself in trying to over analyze the concept of the human spirit. People ARE fallible, but not everyone is corruptible. We see that every day in the news. People WILL die for a cause or standard they believe in. But Nolan did push the limits of that idea on a number of story points in this film. But no where in there did I see the Joker as a hero to the cause. He was exposing people's weaknesses and causing them to destroy one another. He wasn't looking to achieve harmony, just chaos. That's what you get when you lose hope and I think Nolan was trying to offer up Batman as that symbol to inspire people.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Fri, 16 Oct 2015, 13:52
But I think what Nolan was trying to do with Batman's cover-up of Dent was circumvent the intended purpose the Joker had for the public. Remember, the Joker got to Dent at his weakest moment. The Joker exposed that by taking his loss and turning it into revenge. That's a fairly common human emotion and I agree with how that played out. Dent's collapse was very circumstantial to the Joker's influence. But you know that was not HIM. The Joker was trying to use Dent's moment of angst and grief to tell the city that he was NEVER well intended, impacting the city's trust in it's leaders and ability to rebuild itself. The Joker wanted chaos by telling everyone they were no good. Batman was saying there is good, but you have to believe. So I think on principle he was not being a hypocrite in taking that direction.
To tell you the truth, I thought Harvey Dent's turn to insanity was utterly ridiculous too. Yes, I understand Dent was distressed over Rachel's death...but he was staring right at the guy who played a part in murdering her. As a matter of fact, Joker threatening to kill Rachel was the whole reason why Harvey desperately took matters in his own hands when he interrogated that schizo henchman; not to mention Joker already tried to kill Rachel at the penthouse. But in the end, Harvey lets his fiance's killer into manipulating him into taking his anger out on others, who either worked as accomplices or failed to stop him? I don't care how crazy Dent might have become. If he resented Gordon for not being proactive enough to stop the corrupt cops who were involved in Rachel's death, then surely he must have a greater resentment for the man who intended and played a direct part in killing her. It would've made a hell of a lot more sense if Dent had gone on his own path for vengeance without Joker's intervention, and the message that good men could be corrupted still would've carried over, albeit logically.
Compare that to BTAS, Two-Face only had his mind on getting revenge against people who were directly responsible for ruining his life. He didn't blame Batman, Gordon or even the corrupt justice system. No, he wanted to get back at Rupert Thorne and his gang, because they were the ones who threatened to ruin his reputation, and in the end, it lead to his disfigurement, losing his career and his fiance.
Nonetheless, I might've tolerated the whole Two-Face arc if Dent didn't die and Batman told everybody the truth about what happened, and that way, Batman's belief in people was completely justified and fulfills the role as the symbol that inspires others. Some people will argue that it would be questionable for the public to look up to Batman as a role model because he is a vigilante, but you know? Dent isn't innocent either. Not only did he work in a corrupt legal environment like Gordon and Rachel did, he was the one who requested Batman to go and get Lau back from Hong Kong in the first place, and continued to work with Batman soon after.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Fri, 16 Oct 2015, 13:52
But no where in there did I see the Joker as a hero to the cause. He was exposing people's weaknesses and causing them to destroy one another. He wasn't looking to achieve harmony, just chaos.
Agreed. I still have no idea what that blogger who wrote that analysis was talking about.
In regards to this theory: some people think that characters that are against the "system", whatever that is, are automatically heroes. But that does not make it a fact, especially if your hero is a murdering sociopath. ::)
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 16 Oct 2015, 10:49If by sacrifice - you mean Batman taking the fall to prevent people from getting devastated over what Dent did, then no, I don't agree.
It's one thing for a film to give us an impossibly idealistic scenario that shows all people are good, but I hate the mixed message the ending of this film makes. Don't show one moment of ugly human behavior i.e. people caving into Joker's demands by trying to kill Reese, but then expect me to believe a completely unrealistic scenario of citizens and convicts refusing to kill each other when their lives are in danger. And don't expect me to embrace Batman telling a lie that undermines his belief that people can persevere by covering up Dent's crimes. If people are willing to believe in good, and they just proved what Batman has been saying throughout that boat scene, then they can cope with the news that Dent became a psychopath. Otherwise, I guess Batman deep down agrees with Joker's bleak view on human nature after all?
He doesn't agree with it. But he fears the possibility. It's not something he's wants to risk. It doesn't undermine his belief, because that belief in the movie was about Harvey. The people don't cave to the joker's commands. Some do. Others, the majority, don't. Things aren't clean cut. It isn't just that people are bad or good. There are both. The movie shows that. Moroni feels bad for the actions of the joker. The russian doesn't. There several people who do nothing on the boats, several people who vote to blow the other one up, but no one does. Bruce doesn't break, but Harvey does. I'm sorry, but it keeps seeming like you didn't pay attention to the movie.
God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!
This has been a great discussion but I think it also illustrates how the concept gets a little top heavy when screen writers and directors try to incorporate too many metaphors between Batman and his villains. I think there are some interesting analogies wrapped in both characters. But the Nolan films, for me, get so bogged down in the process of wanting to say something about society, they sometimes leave the track of entertainment because of this burden to validate the material.
Ultimately, no matter how a writer or director wants to expound upon the Batman character and his world, there eventually has to be an acceptance that we are functioning in a fictional world even if Batman is depicted as nothing more than a man. His circumstances are incredible and his ability to overcome insurmountable odds are often depicted in the world of the fantastic. Even more so, the world around him is ALWAYS dumbed down to accommodate his existence.
There's a pageantry to the superhero experience that dictates that we watch seemingly ordinary or awkward people become incredible heroes under extraordinary circumstances (with style points). No matter what you add to that foundation, ultimately people want that emotional exchange. It's a celebration of the human spirit through spectacle. We're not suppose to believe this is real. So while I enjoy discussing the social themes within any given material, when it comes to movies about Batman, I personally look for an imaginative production that celebrates the imagery of that world.
Batman walking around like he's overdosed on Prozac is, to me, leaving the train of preferred story telling. I get his angst and thus the reason for his motivation...hence the costume. I don't feel we need a two hour justification for why he wears a costume. There's no amount of rationality that will make it real for this world, so a familiar anecdote to advance the narrative is sufficient for me. I understand why I'm here. I don't need my hero confused for two hours because he doesn't.
If it sounds like I'm paring down the story requirements to make it utterly mindless, that's not my intent. But I do believe there needs to be a degree of awareness on the part of the director (and the audience), of why society has celebrated it's heroes in the panel graphic art form for so long. It's a visual celebration of the human spirit. If Bruce Wayne came out in a towel pinned to a poorly stitched mask, we wouldn't care WHAT got him there. We would consider him an idiot and quickly leave. But if his presentation is sleek and stylish, and he's placed in an environment to compliment that appearance, then we're invested. I never forget that baseline requirement when I see these movies. Forget practicality. Without style points for presentation, most people would just assume Bruce had not survived his parents mugging. We love our heroes, but I believe some directors miss the point by placing too much weight on a multi-layered story that forgets we're here to SEE our hero, not just wallow in his sorrow.
Quote from: Edd Grayson on Sat, 17 Oct 2015, 10:27
In regards to this theory: some people think that characters that are against the "system", whatever that is, are automatically heroes. But that does not make it a fact, especially if your hero is a murdering sociopath. ::)
I believe most people don't actually "like" TDK's Joker per se - they like Ledger's performance. Which is totally fine.
But, for argument's sake, if there are people who do look up to this Joker and deem him as their "hero", while dismissing - say - the DCEU Superman as a "wannabe Christ figure", then something is broken in society.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 6 Jun 2017, 13:00I believe most people don't actually "like" TDK's Joker per se - they like Ledger's performance. Which is totally fine.
But, for argument's sake, if there are people who do look up to this Joker and deem him as their "hero", while dismissing - say - the DCEU Superman as a "wannabe Christ figure", then something is broken in society.
While deeming TDK Joker a hero is nonsense, calling DCEU Superman, and other versions, a wannabe Jesus Christ figure isn't far from the truth in the way he's depicted and even talked about, by Lois, Lex, Martha and Jor-El. Superman is only a man, flawed, he can no more create real hope than I can sprout a duck beak. It's not in his nature. His shield means nothing. It reaches the point where it would go a long way for Clark to just say that he's not God in any way. We know he's religious in some way, by him going to a priest in MOS, so why hasn't he picked up on the fact that he's placing himself as false idol. When someone paints "false god" on his statue, he shouldn't be bummed that he's hated by people, he should nodding right along with the statement the guy who hates him is making by painting that. In spite of any hatred he may have, the guy is right. It's sacrilegious and blasphemous to allow this idea to exist and say nothing against it and he should know that. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
So Superman is causing controversy by not saying something? It seems the guy can't win either way with some people. Superman doesn't have to denounce or defend himself at every single turn. If people are doing something in his name, or believe him to do something he's not, that's on them. It gets to the point if Superman challenged someone on a topic, the media would accuse him of infringing on the person's free speech. Superman comes down from the sky to save people. That's just how it is. The parallel is always going to be there because he's not going to stop saving people. The idea is always going to exist and honestly, Superman would be wasting his time addressing this stuff.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 10 Jun 2017, 11:32So Superman is causing controversy by not saying something? It seems the guy can't win either way with some people. Superman doesn't have to denounce or defend himself at every single turn. If people are doing something in his name, or believe him to do something he's not, that's on them. It gets to the point if Superman challenged someone on a topic, the media would accuse him of infringing on the person's free speech. Superman comes down from the sky to save people. That's just how it is. The parallel is always going to be there because he's not going to stop saving people. The idea is always going to exist and honestly, Superman would be wasting his time addressing this stuff.
He has to denounce himself in some way. Him doing that would be him winning. It's the right thing to do. It's on him for accepting it and allowing it. He simply should say something against it. But the movie just lets it sit. It doesn't matter what the public say if he does the right thing. Then they're in the wrong. People doing something in his name that he actively goes against is fine. Him standing and accepting that is wrong. He doesn't come from the sky. He comes from space. He's nothing like Jesus Christ. He can't heal people, alter elements, know the future or control weather, simply by being the Son of God. He's an alien. Any perception for anything else is just false. Clark, at least, is shown to have some faith in God by going to a Church for guidance. Allowing people to view people as a god, as God, or as Jesus Christ, is an offense to God, by that understanding. He simply shouldn't be upset that someone is against that. Painting false god on his statue is a good thing. He should be cool about it. I didn't get why he was so bummed about someone doing that. Maybe he doesn't like that people hate him? But the painting that is framed as a bad thing and I never got why. He is. Superman should be bailing that guy out of jail and telling him he's right. No Superman, or any human, should allow others to think of them that way. When Batman tells him that he was never a god, despite the fact that I want to root against Batman for his violent actions, I couldn't help but just go, "Yeah, he's not!" Ugh. Sensitive subject, I'm sure you can tell. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
I think this whole "savior" thing is being taken a bit too literally. The literary concept of the Christ figure is hardly new. And hardly unique to Superman.
The entire point of the movie is that parts of the public may love Superman and parts of the public may hate him. But in the end, almost nobody really UNDERSTANDS him. Some view him as just a guy, some as an alien invader, some as a manifestation of the Messiah, etc. The whole savior thing is one view among many regarding Superman.
Don't get lost in the weeds on that, y'all.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Thu, 15 Jun 2017, 03:42
He has to denounce himself in some way.
No he doesn't. As Martha Kent says, Superman doesn't owe the world a thing.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Thu, 15 Jun 2017, 03:42
Him doing that would be him winning. It's the right thing to do.
Superman isn't Deacon Blackfire.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Thu, 15 Jun 2017, 03:42
But the movie just lets it sit. It doesn't matter what the public say if he does the right thing. Then they're in the wrong.
"We have enough problems in this city without worrying about ghosts or goblins."
Quote from: Dagenspear on Thu, 15 Jun 2017, 03:42
He's nothing like Jesus Christ.
He doesn't proclaim to be.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Thu, 15 Jun 2017, 03:42
Allowing people to view people as a god, as God, or as Jesus Christ, is an offense to God, by that understanding.
Human beings have free thought. And anyway, what's God going to do about it? I thought he was all about forgiveness.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Thu, 15 Jun 2017, 03:42
I didn't get why he was so bummed about someone doing that. Maybe he doesn't like that people hate him?
Perry spells it out to the audience - end of love affair with man in the sky?
Quote from: Dagenspear on Thu, 15 Jun 2017, 03:42
Superman should be bailing that guy out of jail and telling him he's right.
No, he shouldn't. Vandalizing a public monument is a crime and that equals punishment.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Thu, 15 Jun 2017, 03:42
No Superman, or any human, should allow others to think of them that way.
If you think simply denouncing certain behavior is where it all begins and ends, you're living in a fantasy world.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Thu, 15 Jun 2017, 04:30I think this whole "savior" thing is being taken a bit too literally. The literary concept of the Christ figure is hardly new. And hardly unique to Superman.
The entire point of the movie is that parts of the public may love Superman and parts of the public may hate him. But in the end, almost nobody really UNDERSTANDS him. Some view him as just a guy, some as an alien invader, some as a manifestation of the Messiah, etc. The whole savior thing is one view among many regarding Superman.
Don't get lost in the weeds on that, y'all.
I understand that. But the problem here is that Superman has nothing to say against it. He should. There should be stuff happening. If this is the kinda thing a writer/director wants to do, then the character has to do something and if he's a hero, he has to be against it. In Smallville, Clark verbatim says, "I'm not a god." He mocks Tess essentially calling him a Messiah figure, because it's lunacy to think of him as one. He has things to say. Clark isn't Batman, who sits in the shadows and doesn't talk to the press. He should have something to say. But he doesn't here.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 15 Jun 2017, 04:43No he doesn't. As Martha Kent says, Superman doesn't owe the world a thing.
Superman isn't Deacon Blackfire.
"We have enough problems in this city without worrying about ghosts or goblins."
He doesn't proclaim to be.
Human beings have free thought. And anyway, what's God going to do about it? I thought he was all about forgiveness.
Perry spells it out to the audience - end of love affair with man in the sky?
No, he shouldn't. Vandalizing a public monument is a crime and that equals punishment.
If you think simply denouncing certain behavior is where it all begins and ends, you're living in a fantasy world.
It's not about owing the world anything. It's about what's right. She also has that nonsense line about being their angel or monument and that's wrong too. He's neither of those things and shouldn't be them. He's a human being.
I don't know what that has to do with what I said, I'm sorry.
This problem is bigger than that.
But he should proclaim that he isn't. By not saying anything against it, he's condoning that idea. I don't think he believes that he is. But he can't stand there and say nothing against it. By his own understanding, he knows that that's wrong. Though my statement there I think was about you citing similarities.
Humans free thought is irrelevant to the issue. If people still think it, then there's nothing Clark can really do about, but he has a responsibility to hold a stance against that.
Yeah, I get that. But why is that a bad thing?
Vandalizing a monument is so minimal in this issue. The guy is in a wheelchair for goodness sake. Regardless, his statement is completely true.
It doesn't matter what people continue to believe for him. He puts himself against is what matters for him.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 01:15I understand that.
Good!
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 01:15But the problem here is that Superman has nothing to say against it.
Ah. So you don't understand at all then.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 02:05
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 01:15I understand that.
Good!
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 01:15But the problem here is that Superman has nothing to say against it.
Ah. So you don't understand at all then.
I get that people hate him or don't and all that other stuff. I don't understand why he says nothing against it, when he should know that he should say something against it, by all accounts. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 01:15
She also has that nonsense line about being their angel or monument and that's wrong too.
Be honest and provide the full quote. She says "Be their angel, be their monument, be anything they need you to be... or be none of it. You don't owe this world a thing. You never did." She's not telling Superman what to do, like you are.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 01:15
He's a human being.
He's a Kryptonian.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 01:15
I don't know what that has to do with what I said, I'm sorry.
Superman doesn't have to denounce himself or in fact do
anything for humanity.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 01:15
But he should proclaim that he isn't. By not saying anything against it, he's condoning that idea.
Everyone has their own view about Superman. In my opinion, it's insecure people who compare him to Jesus as if it's a negative. Personally, I think Superman should go full God mode (such as this gem from Leviticus 20:15 NLT= If a man has sex with an animal, he must be put to death, and the animal must be killed) but he doesn't. He has self control and suppresses any urges.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 01:15
Humans free thought is irrelevant to the issue. If people still think it, then there's nothing Clark can really do about, but he has a responsibility to hold a stance against that.
You're answer is bolded above.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 01:15
Yeah, I get that. But why is that a bad thing?
Devoting yourself to a selfless cause only to receive harsh backlash isn't a good thing for a person experience. Do you think it is?
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 01:15
Vandalizing a monument is so minimal in this issue. The guy is in a wheelchair for goodness sake. Regardless, his statement is completely true.
I don't care if he's in a wheelchair or not. He's nothing but a vandal with a high likelihood of being radicalized by the mainstream media. Graffiti vandals are punished. The rule of law must be upheld. How about I tag your walls with 'completely true' statements and see how you like it?
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 09:15Be honest and provide the full quote. She says "Be their angel, be their monument, be anything they need you to be... or be none of it. You don't owe this world a thing. You never did." She's not telling Superman what to do, like you are.
He's a Kryptonian.
Superman doesn't have to denounce himself or in fact do anything for humanity.
Everyone has their own view about Superman. In my opinion, it's insecure people who compare him to Jesus as if it's a negative. Personally, I think Superman should go full God mode (such as this gem from Leviticus 20:15 NLT= If a man has sex with an animal, he must be put to death, and the animal must be killed) but he doesn't. He has self control and suppresses any urges.
You're answer is bolded above.
Devoting yourself to a selfless cause only to receive harsh backlash isn't a good thing for a person experience. Do you think it is?
I don't care if he's in a wheelchair or not. He's nothing but a vandal with a high likelihood of being radicalized by the mainstream media. Graffiti vandals are punished. The rule of law must be upheld. How about I tag your walls with 'completely true' statements and see how you like it?
I know what she says. It doesn't change the fact that he should be none of it. His mom is wrong in that he should or shouldn't be those things. He just shouldn't. What the people need doesn't matter. What's right is. He needs someone to tell him what to do. He needs that structure. He's only human.
He's a human being. Let's not get technical here. He is flawed. He's only human.
It is a negative. He's not. Superman has no right to be that.
Yeah. But that doesn't change what Superman should do.
Not if their allowing themself to be seen as God, a god or the Messiah.
The wheelchair thing was simply a statement of his lack of a threat. The vandal aspect is still not hugely awful. He wasn't putting on someone's wall. He was putting it on a statue. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 10:38
I know what she says. It doesn't change the fact that he should be none of it.
It's up to Superman to decide what Superman will do. He can take advice from others, but the decision will ultimately be his.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 10:38
He's a human being. Let's not get technical here.
That's rich coming from you.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 10:38
It is a negative. He's not. Superman has no right to be that.
Says who?
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 10:38
Yeah. But that doesn't change what Superman should do.
According to someone like you. Your view would not reflect the entirety of the populace. And nor would mine. You're not going to please everyone. Superman should therefore be judged on his behavior. And he's saving innocent people.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 10:38
Not if their allowing themself to be seen as God, a god or the Messiah.
Superman being Superman does that. He's can't be anything other than what he is.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 10:38
He wasn't putting on someone's wall. He was putting it on a statue.
Well,
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 10:38
Let's not get technical here.
Wherever he puts his tag, it's not going to be welcome. He defaced a public landmark.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 11:59
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 10:38
I know what she says. It doesn't change the fact that he should be none of it.
It's up to Superman to decide what Superman will do. He can take advice from others, but the decision will ultimately be his.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 10:38
He's a human being. Let's not get technical here.
That's rich coming from you.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 10:38
It is a negative. He's not. Superman has no right to be that.
Says who?
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 10:38
Yeah. But that doesn't change what Superman should do.
According to someone like you. Your view would not reflect the entirety of the populace. And nor would mine. You're not going to please everyone. Superman should therefore be judged on his behavior. And he's saving innocent people.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 10:38
Not if their allowing themself to be seen as God, a god or the Messiah.
Superman being Superman does that. He's can't be anything other than what he is.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 10:38
He wasn't putting on someone's wall. He was putting it on a statue.
Well,
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 10:38
Let's not get technical here.
Wherever he puts his tag, it's not going to be welcome. He defaced a public landmark.
I know that it doesn't change his God given free will. But that doesn't change what he should do.
I'm aware that he is an alien. But I was using the term human to define him as flawed, like humans are. That was wrong. I should have simply referred to him as flawed like a human.
Clark has religious beliefs, as far as the movies have developed, so by his understanding he knows that God says so.
No, it doesn't. People may still see him that way. But he should put himself against it.
The populace's viewpoint doesn't matter in this. They are just as flawed as he is. Saving people doesn't make him good or right for allowing this to be something, without saying something against it.
See above.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun 2017, 00:54
I know that it doesn't change his God given free will. But that doesn't change what he should do.
What someone should or shouldn't do is an opinion. Hence we get split opinion in BvS. When he arrives at the Senate hearing you see people holding pro Superman signs and people holding anti Superman signs. You're on the anti Superman side. I'm on the pro Superman side.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun 2017, 00:54
I'm aware that he is an alien. But I was using the term human to define him as flawed, like humans are. That was wrong. I should have simply referred to him as flawed like a human.
Yep.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun 2017, 00:54
Clark has religious beliefs, as far as the movies have developed, so by his understanding he knows that God says so.
Clark visits a church in MoS to seek an opinion, just as he seek an opinion from his mother in BvS. But the decision he makes is still his.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun 2017, 00:54
No, it doesn't. People may still see him that way. But he should put himself against it.
Where does he say he's Jesus? He doesn't. Jesus is good. Superman is good. I don't see the problem anyway.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun 2017, 00:54
Saving people doesn't make him good or right for allowing this to be something, without saying something against it.
So all the good he has done as a superhero means nothing because some people view him as Jesus?
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 07:06I get that people hate him or don't and all that other stuff. I don't understand why he says nothing against it, when he should know that he should say something against it, by all accounts.
I see.
Next time maybe you can just say "I don't understand the literary concept of the Christ figure or how Snyder toyed with it, and I never will". It'll save both of us some time.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 17 Jun 2017, 01:08What someone should or shouldn't do is an opinion. Hence we get split opinion in BvS. When he arrives at the Senate hearing you see people holding pro Superman signs and people holding anti Superman signs. You're on the anti Superman side. I'm on the pro Superman side.
Yep.
Clark visits a church in MoS to seek an opinion, just as he seek an opinion from his mother in BvS. But the decision he makes is still his.
Where does he say he's Jesus? He doesn't. Jesus is good. Superman is good. I don't see the problem anyway.
So all the good he has done as a superhero means nothing because some people view him as Jesus?
It isn't an opinion. The right thing is always a fact. I'm not anti Superman. I'm anti his wrong decisions.
His God given free will still his to make a decision he wants to make. That doesn't make his decision right.
Him saying it is irrelevant if he says nothing against him being Jesus. By Jesus Christ's own Words: Only God is good. Superman is flawed and not good.
If he says nothing against that.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 17 Jun 2017, 01:57I see.
Next time maybe you can just say "I don't understand the literary concept of the Christ figure or how Snyder toyed with it, and I never will". It'll save both of us some time.
I do understand it. It's still wrong.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun 2017, 08:30
It isn't an opinion. The right thing is always a fact. I'm not anti Superman. I'm anti his wrong decisions.
It is an opinion. Not everyone believes in the the bible as the undisputed truth, or follows the scriptures verbatim. Cavill's Superman clearly has some element of religious belief given he attends a church, but he's not a mindless sheep. He's still making up his own mind.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun 2017, 08:30
His God given free will still his to make a decision he wants to make. That doesn't make his decision right.
See above.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun 2017, 08:30
Him saying it is irrelevant if he says nothing against him being Jesus. By Jesus Christ's own Words: Only God is good. Superman is flawed and not good.
Superman is flawed and good. Jesus doesn't have the monopoly on being good.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun 2017, 08:30
If he says nothing against that.
Then I find your reasoning absurd. By your reasoning, if Superman saves Metropolis from nuclear armageddon but doesn't make a statement about Jesus he's a bad person.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 17 Jun 2017, 09:29It is an opinion. Not everyone believes in the the bible as the undisputed truth, or follows the scriptures verbatim. Cavill's Superman clearly has some element of religious belief given he attends a church, but he's not a mindless sheep. He's still making up his own mind.
It isn't an opinion. By the nature of him following his opinion, he's following his own wants and desires and perceptions, by doing so he's no more than an animal. That's mindless of him. He can come to a decision on his own and still be wrong regardless.
QuoteSee above.
It doesn't.
QuoteSuperman is flawed and good. Jesus doesn't have the monopoly on being good.
By his very nature Superman can't be good on his own. But Jesus kinda does have the monopoly on that. But by the perception you provide, if what's right is an opinion to you, then by the structure of that relativism, there can't be good or bad.
QuoteThen I find your reasoning absurd. By your reasoning, if Superman saves Metropolis from nuclear armageddon but doesn't make a statement about Jesus he's a bad person.
It's if he doesn't make a statement against those worshiping him as a false idol. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun 2017, 22:31
It isn't an opinion. By the nature of him following his opinion, he's following his own wants and desires and perceptions, by doing so he's no more than an animal. That's mindless of him. He can come to a decision on his own and still be wrong regardless.
I can't really progress this debate without me stepping on religious toes here, so I'll try and be careful. From my perspective, I find religion to be an easy answer to every question. I also find people act with a moral superiority - with strength in numbers, telling people how to live and what to do. They're right and everyone else is wrong because an ancient book says so. Everyone knows right from wrong with or without the Bible.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun 2017, 22:31
By his very nature Superman can't be good on his own. But Jesus kinda does have the monopoly on that. But by the perception you provide, if what's right is an opinion to you, then by the structure of that relativism, there can't be good or bad.
That's rubbish. Superman can be good on his own, and he is good on his own. Nobody has the monopoly on being good. Helping a little old lady across the road is good. Robbing a store at gunpoint is bad. It's not rocket science. The Bible is real to you because you believe it, and that's cool. But I'm not a believer in the Bible. And then we get the whole 'oh, well, Jesus still believes in you even though you don't.' Which I think is also ridiculous. I'm of the view he didn't exist at all. Applying a personal belief to everyone as fact, as something all need to follow, is the problem I have.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun 2017, 22:31
It's if he doesn't make a statement against those worshiping him as a false idol.
What happens if he makes a statement and people keep looking at him as a 'false idol'? Does he retire? Keep making daily statements?
I didn't expect me bringing up Superman would suddenly change the topic of what this thread is about. :-\
But anyway...
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 09:15
Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun 2017, 01:15
Vandalizing a monument is so minimal in this issue. The guy is in a wheelchair for goodness sake. Regardless, his statement is completely true.
I don't care if he's in a wheelchair or not. He's nothing but a vandal with a high likelihood of being radicalized by the mainstream media. Graffiti vandals are punished. The rule of law must be upheld. How about I tag your walls with 'completely true' statements and see how you like it?
I agree. Just because you're disabled doesn't mean you deserve special consideration if you commit vandalism. And exempting crimes in the name of God is an extremely dangerous attitude to take. What's next? Do we begin to condone killing in the name of God? If it gets to that point, society has lost its moral compass completely.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 18 Jun 2017, 01:05I can't really progress this debate without me stepping on religious toes here, so I'll try and be careful. From my perspective, I find religion to be an easy answer to every question. I also find people act with a moral superiority - with strength in numbers, telling people how to live and what to do. They're right and everyone else is wrong because an ancient book says so. Everyone knows right from wrong with or without the Bible.
People think they do, but the world proves that statement wrong. Belief isn't easy. The choice to believe is the choice to fight against everything the world wants you to think and do and what you yourself want to think and do. It's hard, not easy. But carries a peaceful understanding. My life was a lot easier, less filled with thought or considerations for my actions and consequences of them. The good Lord saved me from that. It's funny, I sometimes miss the feeling of irresponsibility, but I would never want to be what I was then ever again.
QuoteThat's rubbish. Superman can be good on his own, and he is good on his own. Nobody has the monopoly on being good. Helping a little old lady across the road is good. Robbing a store at gunpoint is bad. It's not rocket science. The Bible is real to you because you believe it, and that's cool. But I'm not a believer in the Bible. And then we get the whole 'oh, well, Jesus still believes in you even though you don't.' Which I think is also ridiculous. I'm of the view he didn't exist at all. Applying a personal belief to everyone as fact, as something all need to follow, is the problem I have.
By the structure of the logic you provide, that no one has the monopoly on good, then whose to say, by your thought process, that those things are good or bad? If there's no monopoly, by your logic, then who is anybody to say either of those things? Superman isn't good on his own. But Jesus does have the monopoly. Belief is a choice, not an emotion and it's based off of me rejecting my desires to sin.
QuoteWhat happens if he makes a statement and people keep looking at him as a 'false idol'? Does he retire? Keep making daily statements?
If people don't accept it, then, though I'm not sure myself, it would seem that he has fulfilled his responsibility to right the ship. People's choices and sins are their own in that capacity, as I understand it. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!