Both are unique beings, capable of miraculous deeds.
Both were raised in hick villages by not-their-real-Dad.
Both struggled to maintain a relationship with a woman, because their
fans and supporters just refused to believe it.
Both surrounded themselves with a bunch of wannabe acolytes.
Both are possessed of an incurable desire to help mankind when mankind
doesn't really deserve it.
Both died to save humanity and were resurrected.
Both are instantly recognizable figures, even to those with only a
passing knowledge of either Christian religion or comic book
superheroes.
Professing a deep seated admiration for either will your get arse kicked
in most circles.

It would appear that despite being an advanced and enlightened
civilization, we still cling to the deity myth.


Discuss.

uh oh whisper, you're opening up a can of worms!

the only difference vis that jesus is real and superman is not

and jesus is god alone and superman is not real

It's interesting to note that after Superman was resurrected (after
being "killed" by Doomsday), there was a storyline where a cult formed,
which worshipped Superman as a god....

God is as real as you believe he is just like the son of Jor-El.

Another parallel -- both were betrayed by someone who started out being
perceived as a friend....

hiw much time do you people have?

The creators of Superman based him on people from the bible. Actually
they were Jewish and the main person they based him on was Moses.

sorry...still prefer spider man

Ummm...

both can only be found in books written by men.

One of words the other of pictures.

Both also have an advesary of mythical proportions.

Stan Lee is God!

He even appears in the new Spidey movie!!!

It is interesting that Jar-El is superman father. As Yahweh being
Yahshua's father (yes Yahshua is not the father) is called Elohim=
judge. As when Yahshua said from the Psalmists we are Elohim. And Elohim
is of the spiritual not of the natural flesh. but then again is Superman
really making fun of our Messiah and his Father as if yahweh is dead and
only some computer of sorts is left as Jar-el's natural body was
destroyed. yet Yahweh is Spirit and never had a natural body. I enjoy
Smalleville but I would not even in the least bit equate Clark with
Yahshua. Miles

that's true you can never compare superman to jesus

Rob I am an insomniac, so sadly I have plenty of time.


Well Superman was created by two Jews (Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster) and
it was the story some one different having to leave their homeland. He
wore an "S" on his chest like the Jews had to wear the star of David. He
had to hide his true self in fear of being persecuted. Like moses was
found in a basket (spacecraft)
Kal-El is very Hebrew

I was just telling Lex that there are no closer parallels in modern
mythology than the Son of Yahweh and the Son of Jor-El.

"that's true you can never compare superman to jesus "

Exactly!! One is figment of man's imagination ... and so is the other!

"that's true you can never compare superman to jesus"

Never say never. I think I just did.

Whipsertoascream wrote:
“It would appear that despite being an advanced and enlightened
civilization, we still cling to the deity myth.”

I believe that there are compelling rational reasons for believing that
the universe has a spiritual nature to it. In fact, I believe that our
own personal abilities to ‘perceive’ is evidence in it’s own right. I
could probably write an entire book on that topic alone.

However, I do agree with you that clinging to ancient myths of deities
is somewhat less than rational.

For example, it’s clear to us as a scientifically enlightened people
what causes things like weather, disease, and even our own procreation.
The idea of surrender sacrificial lambs to appease the spirits of angry
gods was obviously an incorrect idea.

The idea that a god would send a sacrificial lamb to die for us is even
more absurd. Who would be ‘appeased’ by such an act? Certainly not us
I hope!

So, yes, I have to agree with you that the idea of sacrificial lambs has
gone awry and it’s time to think that perhaps if the universe has a
spiritual element it had nothing to do with appeasing angry gods.

I do believe that there is something to be said for the view of Eastern
Mysticism though. Although even in those cases I would hesitate to
embrace any doctrines that proclaim to know too much about precisely how
we should be have or what ‘god’ wants from us.

I do believe that there are valid rational reasons for believing in
reincarnation though. In fact, from my own personally point of view that
conclusion seems to be inescapable. I came out of the universe,
therefore I will have no choice to go back into it when my body dies.

Am I just a collection of atoms and nothing more? I don’t buy into
that, because then I have to ask the question of why do I ‘perceive’.
What’s doing the perceiving? Just a brain that is nothing more than a
collection of atoms? If that’s the case then perhaps my computer is
also ‘perceiving’?

I personally believe that there is more to it than that. I believe that
my consciousness, my ability to perceive (not logically think), is an
innate property of what I am. When my physical body dies, that part of
me that perceives will go back to the spiritual essence of the universe.

I simply don’t believe that I am nothing more than a collection of atoms
‘perceiving’ because of my physical form and for no other reason.

But I’m not going to go running off believing in sacrificial lambs just
because I believe that I am more than just my physical body. Just
because I believe that the universe has a spiritual nature doesn’t mean
that I need to revert to believing in dark age superstitions and
customs.

Eastern Mysticism certainly has much more to offer in the way of a
rational view of spirituality.

Abracadabra wrote:

"Am I just a collection of atoms and nothing more? I don’t buy into
that, because then I have to ask the question of why do I ‘perceive’.
What’s doing the perceiving? Just a brain that is nothing more than a
collection of atoms? If that’s the case then perhaps my computer is also
‘perceiving’?"
================================================================

I have a hard time thinking that I am anything but. I mean people have
studied the human body over and over again. If we were anything other
then being made up of atoms, do you not thing somebody somewhere would
of discovered it?

I have a hard time perceiving anything then what it actually is.
My body is flesh, bones and atomes and such. My computer is just a bunch
of computer chips and plastic and what not.

It is just hard for me to believe anything that is not facts. If
something can not be proved then how can it in any way shape or form be
acceptable?