Would you agree that the modern Superman character is blasphemy and also totally out of character for the intentions of jewish creators of Superman?

[SeekerOfTruth007]

The modern comic book character permits himself to be called "God".

The original character was an allegory of a Hebrew Prophet, probably either Moses of the Jewish Messiah, and would by no means call himself "God" nor "A God". The original Superman character had more in common with the Marvel character Colossus than it did the existing modern Superman character DC sells to young people and even adults. Every Jewish child knows there is only one God. There is no God before Him, not God beside Him, and no God after Him.

One reason why I might not give nor even sell my comic ideas to third party is because I don't want someone making blasphemy out of my ideas, whether knowingly or unknowingly.

Updates

1 y

Furthermore, it is not ignorance on the part of the authors, because only a person who was claiming Superman was in fact ALMIGHTY would write Superman as having some of the ridiculous "Feats" he has in the comics and movies, such as rewriting time itself to save Lois Lane, or moving entire Galaxies out of position, etc.

Updates

1 y

The only real reason I'm making one of my characters in my book so powerful is to show the preposterous stupidity of Superman, by having her defeat a cheap rip-off of Superman who is at least as powerful as him. Also, my character, Neutron Girl, specifically tells the villain, "There is only one God, and you are not it!"

[Stevepro68]

Well blasphemy is a religious idea based on religion. all religions get to decide what is blasphemous and what is not. So you are both right and wrong. Many people of Jewish faith may find it blasphemous but that doesn't me the concept is universal or even correct. Religion is a lens. A lens of all colors sizes and focus. Like all art blasphemy is simply the eye of the beholder not a universal truth. Since all religions are a negotiation between the members of the religion.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

I didn't make an appeal to "religion". I made an ontological statement. There is no conceivable way for their to be two "First Causes" for reality. Therefore there cannot be more than one God. The Ontological argument holds true regardless of whatever religious practices a person claims to have, and that's precisely why most religions are in fact FALSE.

There cannot be two True Creators.
There cannot be two First Causes.
There cannot be two Almighty Beings. The term "Almighty" means ONE Being has all power, authority, and morality.

In the laws of the English language, the term "God" when capitalized can only correctly refer to the Almighty Creator of reality, and when lower case it can only correctly be applied to an IDOL.

[Stevepro68]

So Blasphemy by definition is speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things. Your words not mine. The word religion is literally in the definition. An attempt to change the subject doesn't change the reality that blasphemy is a religious definition and there are many religions, all equally true to their believers. Self arrogance leads some to believe that their God and only their's must be right one. That is faith not fact. Faith is a decision based on lack of facts. Faith is not an ontological truth it's simply faith. Your faith applied to others faith is in fact blasphemy to them. So it in turn makes you a blasphemous person to others.
Acceptance and love would tend to make most all knowing and all powerful creator happy. I tend to focus on that as it seems like a good policy for here and the afterlife. Live long and prosper my friend.

[strateguy632]

I agree, calling himself god is out of character, and ignored both kryptonite! And jew jerry seigel ideas.

I do suspect seigel intended to reject god by criticism but still later shows added "thank god for superman" which is thought provoking!