Supergirl. Wonder Woman. And the Usual Suspects. Heralds of the Luciferian Age?

" ... executes criminals that, in an earlier time, would have been stopped creatively without bloodshed ..."

You know the scene I'm talking about.

Incidentally, this statement would apply even better to the very mainstream-at-the-time Superman #22, by John Byrne.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I honestly think that your statement is a horrible over-simplification of what happened. But that's me.

Also, I don't think anyone can claim it was an execution.

If you think that concerning the Man-of-Steel movie, you don't read enough reviews:

" ... The resolutions of these fights are also starkly contrasting. Reeve’s Superman, after luring Zod away from the city to protect the people, uses his brain rather than his brawn to defeat Zod. He understands Zod’s character – arrogant and selfish – and uses it against him. The scene is well-written and deftly plays on the motivations of the characters involved. In ‘Man of Steel’, after a brutal and protracted punch-up, Cavill’s Superman gets angry and executes Zod. That’s it. Reeve’s Superman would not approve..."

http://www.oldredjalopy.com/musings-on-man-of-steel/

If you think that concerning Superman Volume 2 #22 (John Byrne), you need to re-examine what Superman himself says:

Originally posted by -Pr-
I don't think anything about Superman is at all Satanic.

With all due respect, I'm not sure you or most of the people reading or responding to this thread fully realize what "Luciferian" means. It is not quite the same as Satanic. Presumably "Satanic" equates to "evil" in your mind?
And LOOKS "evil"?

Luciferian LOOKS "good". It is often beautiful and angelic-looking.
Perhaps some of its followers even believe so.
I happened to stumble upon a website that enforced the point, relatively well-reflects how I am trying to use the word "Luciferian". Note that it is not exact. Note that I myself am neither a Luciferian or a Satanist. Note that I am not endorsing this place. I wish ONLY to provide proof with this link, with some authority, that Luciferian and Satanic are not always equivalent terms, though the average reader might think they are.

http://altreligion.about.com/od/alternativereligionsaz/a/How-Luciferians-Differ-From-Satanists.htm

Perhaps it might be useful to explain to people what traits define a character as Luciferian to begin with.
See if you see any reflection of Superman once you read the following:

"Church of Satan founder Anton LeVay said comic books were a means to get Satanic philosophy into the hands of children since that medium was invented by Eastman Color Printing's salesmen Max Ginzberg (Maxwell Gaines) and Harry Wildenberg in 1933. The first comic was a harmless collection of newspaper style 'funnies' titled "Famous Funnies: A Carnival of Comics".

The sinister type of comic 'super hero' genre was invented by a couple of teenagers as 'Superman' during 1932, Jerry Seigel and Joe Shuster in Cleveland Ohio. They sold the prototype story boards to the new 'Detective Comics", now known as DC Comics. The Superman Concept spawned endless copycats, such as Batman who was soon to follow.

Yeah I know, "but Superman was a good guy". LeVay went on to explain the Luciferian 'hero' characteristics. He's a superior being trapped in the human world where he must conceal his identity, lest the inferior human beings try to destroy him. His past usually involves a fall from his previous world to Earth, often left to die by comrades or enemies. LeVay identified the 1950's TV character "The Lone Ranger" as a typical Luciferian hero."

http://indigosociety.com/showthread.php?56798-The-Luciferian-Superman-Comic-Book-Connection

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I've not really made an argument. I suppose if I were to make one it would be something like: "Comic industry characters and scripts seem to be reflective of, and are perhaps to some degree influenced by, lesser known Judeo-Christian writings. This is perhaps to be expected given the background of the people who originally created the industry to begin with."

Filtering out distortion

I plan relatively soon to outline the basic model that is BEING modeled, which is essentially the Jewish/Christian log of Creation, Fall, Redemption, Apocalypse.

It takes a very specific form in the Torah, Tanakh, and Bible (presumably the Kaballah, too, but, I've not had exposure to that particular book, and, unless I find one of those online, am not likely to in the future).

It's important to understand; it is the "longhand" if you will, that is shortened, warped, and symbolized in current DCnU arcs, even as it was to some extent in previous eras.

It is the second one, however, the "warping", that is essential to realize.
The tellings are rarely, if ever, exact translations.
That does NOT mean they are not derived from the original source I'm going to describe; just makes it difficult to convey using conventional formats.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
" ... executes criminals that, in an earlier time, would have been stopped creatively without bloodshed ..."

You know the scene I'm talking about.

Incidentally, this statement would apply even better to the very mainstream-at-the-time Superman #22, by John Byrne.

If you think that concerning the Man-of-Steel movie, you don't read enough reviews:

" ... The resolutions of these fights are also starkly contrasting. Reeve’s Superman, after luring Zod away from the city to protect the people, uses his brain rather than his brawn to defeat Zod. He understands Zod’s character – arrogant and selfish – and uses it against him. The scene is well-written and deftly plays on the motivations of the characters involved. In ‘Man of Steel’, after a brutal and protracted punch-up, Cavill’s Superman gets angry and executes Zod. That’s it. Reeve’s Superman would not approve..."

http://www.oldredjalopy.com/musings-on-man-of-steel/

If you think that concerning Superman Volume 2 #22 (John Byrne), you need to re-examine what Superman himself says:

I read enough reviews to get the impression that most of the reviewers have what I would consider either a distorted or simply unrealistic view of Superman.

Even if I'm wrong (and I don't think I am), nothing about what Superman did comes across as him "executing" Zod to me. This Superman, new to the usage of his powers in many ways, did the only thing he felt he could do in that moment. Was it particularly well-written? No. I don't think that it was. I do think, though, that it got the point across that Superman felt he was forced to do something he didn't wish to do.

That's not an execution, to me.

The John Byrne scan really isn't relevant to your argument, imo.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
With all due respect, I'm not sure you or most of the people reading or responding to this thread fully realize what "Luciferian" means. It is not quite the same as Satanic. Presumably "Satanic" equates to "evil" in your mind?
And LOOKS "evil"?

Luciferian LOOKS "good". It is often beautiful and angelic-looking.
Perhaps some of its followers even believe so.
I happened to stumble upon a website that enforced the point, relatively well-reflects how I am trying to use the word "Luciferian". Note that it is not exact. Note that I myself am neither a Luciferian or a Satanist. Note that I am not endorsing this place. I wish ONLY to provide proof with this link, with some authority, that Luciferian and Satanic are not always equivalent terms, though the average reader might think they are.

http://altreligion.about.com/od/alternativereligionsaz/a/How-Luciferians-Differ-From-Satanists.htm

Perhaps it might be useful to explain to people what traits define a character as Luciferian to begin with.
See if you see any reflection of Superman once you read the following:

"Church of Satan founder Anton LeVay said comic books were a means to get Satanic philosophy into the hands of children since that medium was invented by Eastman Color Printing's salesmen Max Ginzberg (Maxwell Gaines) and Harry Wildenberg in 1933. The first comic was a harmless collection of newspaper style 'funnies' titled "Famous Funnies: A Carnival of Comics".

The sinister type of comic 'super hero' genre was invented by a couple of teenagers as 'Superman' during 1932, Jerry Seigel and Joe Shuster in Cleveland Ohio. They sold the prototype story boards to the new 'Detective Comics", now known as DC Comics. The Superman Concept spawned endless copycats, such as Batman who was soon to follow.

Yeah I know, "but Superman was a good guy". LeVay went on to explain the Luciferian 'hero' characteristics. He's a superior being trapped in the human world where he must conceal his identity, lest the inferior human beings try to destroy him. His past usually involves a fall from his previous world to Earth, often left to die by comrades or enemies. LeVay identified the 1950's TV character "The Lone Ranger" as a typical Luciferian hero."

http://indigosociety.com/showthread.php?56798-The-Luciferian-Superman-Comic-Book-Connection

If we're going by the whole "morning star" thing, then I really don't see how Superman being a "Luciferian hero" is necessarily a bad thing, or how it relates at all to this topic.

I'll admit that I only have a vague understanding from what I've read, so am I missing something?

Superman didn't get angry and execute Zod. He did so was anguish and grief as he effectively severed the one link he had left with his people to save the lives of innocents. I didn't care for that particular scene, but I understood it.

Originally posted by JakeTheBank
Superman didn't get angry and execute Zod. He did so was anguish and grief as he effectively severed the one link he had left with his people to save the lives of innocents. I didn't care for that particular scene, but I understood it.

Same. I do see where people are coming from when they say "he had other options", but I can still see where Snyder was coming from.

Filtering out distortion

3 examples of the type of distortion I'm trying to describe are coming to mind.

It is is necessary to do so because nearly everything I'm trying to describe is in disguise to some extent, and presumably was/is intended to be so.

I'm not sure I'll use the 1st example.

It would have been the Lonestar versus Dark Helmet battle. It's currently on YouTube. The groan-inducing humor of the scene would distract too much from the point I'm trying to get across. It would be good if that could be gotten past. No one who views the clip could fail to recognize what it is derived from.

2nd example would be Grendel, a re-telling of the first part of the epic poem "Beowulf". From the perspective of the monster. This example would be particularly appropriate for trying to explain Luciferian symbolism.

I'll likely search for a good quick summary so I can illustrate that particular point without wasting much time typing later this week.

3rd example, knowing that I'm dealing with an audience familiar with arcade games and the like ... "Gairyu Isle". Something that reflects just how subtle and very much altered things can be, but still legitimately recognizable as derived unmistakeably from a kernel source.

Then again, one enormous difficulty I'm having is that of ordered presentation.
So I might create a thread for Gairyu elsewhere in the forum before coming back to this particular thread to develop it.

Might be a good idea to see what my audience understands so far, too, so:

P.R.

1) My assertion about Superboy Prime in Countdown 13 and The Beast being a reference to The Beast of Revelation. Agree or disagree? If you disagree, why do you disagree? Where do you think the writer got that instead?
What evidence do you have to the contrary and where have you heard that singular term before?

2) Do you agree or disagree that Man of Steel and Superman Returns both used Christ imagery with Superman? Do you recognize those poses as crucifix and sacrifice motifs or not? If not, what do you propose the poses were adopted for instead?

Originally posted by -Pr-
I read enough reviews to get the impression that most of the reviewers have what I would consider either a distorted or simply unrealistic view of Superman.

1) Granted.
2) Without denying #1, though ... you're a special case.

Originally posted by -Pr-

The John Byrne scan really isn't relevant to your argument, imo.

It corroborates the statement I made earlier:
" ... executes criminals that, in an earlier time, would have been stopped creatively without bloodshed ..."

Originally posted by -Pr-

If we're going by the whole "morning star" thing, then I really don't see how Superman being a "Luciferian hero" is necessarily a bad thing, or how it relates at all to this topic.

Planning to get to that a little later this week.

Originally posted by -Pr-

I'll admit that I only have a vague understanding from what I've read, so am I missing something?

Scans from the comics from me concerning Supergirl, Superman, Wonder Woman, Black Adam, Mary Marvel, and a host of others.

And the full development of the argument I've allowed to be set forth.

Which, again, is essentially this:

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I've not really made an argument. I suppose if I were to make one it would be something like: "Comic industry characters and scripts seem to be reflective of, and are perhaps to some degree influenced by, lesser known Judeo-Christian writings. This is perhaps to be expected given the background of the people who originally created the industry to begin with."

... and I don't intend to stray very far beyond what is necessary to support the above statement.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
1) My assertion about Superboy Prime in Countdown 13 and The Beast being a reference to The Beast of Revelation. Agree or disagree? If you disagree, why do you disagree? Where do you think the writer got that instead?
What evidence do you have to the contrary and where have you heard that singular term before?

2) Do you agree or disagree that Man of Steel and Superman Returns both used Christ imagery with Superman? Do you recognize those poses as crucifix and sacrifice motifs or not? If not, what do you propose the poses were adopted for instead?

1) Using parallels between religion/mythology for literary purposes has been going on for years. It helps the reader see the gravity of the situation. DC actually has a heaven and a hell, and Superboy Prime is part of neither. It's how the writers get across that this is a massive deal, and that the threat needs to be taken seriously.

2) Superman has long been used as a Christ-like figure. A saviour of mankind. As a fan, I dislike it as much as Superman himself does. It's, again, a method used by writers to try to portray an idea through simple means.

It is not saying that Superman is literally Christ, or that Prime is literally the beast.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
It corroborates the statement I made earlier:
" ... executes criminals that, in an earlier time, would have been stopped creatively without bloodshed ..."

Except that it doesn't. It was stated many times that Superman felt he had literally no other course of action. It's a staple of the character that he takes on burdens so that other people don't have to, whether they be physical, mental or spiritual.

"I can't stop these criminals, so I'll deal with the consequences of my actions and the guilt that comes with it, so that people don't die" etc.

There's a difference between killing, and executing. A very important one at that, imo.

======

So your argument is that writers are influenced by religion/myths etc. Is that all? I don't mean to be rude, but I'm honestly asking why debate it at all? It's quite obvious that writers have for years used parallels to help get their points and characters across.

You think there's something sinister going on?

Originally posted by -Pr-
1) Using parallels between religion/mythology for literary purposes has been going on for years. It helps the reader see the gravity of the situation. DC actually has a heaven and a hell, and Superboy Prime is part of neither. It's how the writers get across that this is a massive deal, and that the threat needs to be taken seriously.

2) Superman has long been used as a Christ-like figure. A saviour of mankind. As a fan, I dislike it as much as Superman himself does. It's, again, a method used by writers to try to portray an idea through simple means.

It is not saying that Superman is literally Christ, or that Prime is literally the beast.

Originally posted by -Pr-

It was stated many times that Superman felt he had literally no other course of action. It's a staple of the character that he takes on burdens so that other people don't have to, whether they be physical, mental or spiritual.

"I can't stop these criminals, so I'll deal with the consequences of my actions and the guilt that comes with it, so that people don't die" etc.

Problem with that. Before their execution by Superman with green kryptonite, with Superman himself calling himself "executioner", the Phantom Zone criminals were exposed with Gold Kryptonite. A mineral proven to permanently take away Kryptonian superpowers. It was more or less ordinary people Superman killed at that point.

Originally posted by -Pr-

So your argument is that writers are influenced by religion/myths etc. Is that all? I don't mean to be rude, but I'm honestly asking why debate it at all? It's quite obvious that writers have for years used parallels to help get their points and characters across.

Except it's NOT obvious to many people, including many in this thread.
And I'm arguing these writings are being influenced by a specific type or class of religion(s). I'm even interested in whether or not these writings are so specifically reflective that they can be used to predict where DC will go with current or future arcs. I don't think they are yet, but am interested to see if my opinion or that of others changes in the course of doing this.

Originally posted by -Pr-

You think there's something sinister going on?

That's not a focus of this thread. Like, at all.

I have to admit I am a LITTLE disconcerted to find now that this title, once exclusively calling this particular thread and only this particular thread up via Google, now has me on some type of Anti-Masonic list, though ...

😕

I've been trying to think of a way, given what Iopy told me the other day, of quickly relating the bare minimum of "longhand" a completely-unfamiliar-with- anything-remotely-relating-to-Judeo-Christianity reader would need as their base.

Hard to find anything both short enough and informative enough to hold the attention of the average reader, but, judging from at least some of the responses I'm getting, a lot of the readers of this thread are a bit more serious than the average comic reader to begin with.

I'll supplement as necessary.

Briefly:

Doctrines of Luciferian Gnosticism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_OZtVxNQtc
7 min 15 sec

Knowledge of what is contained in the 1st video alone MIGHT be enough to make true sense of everything that will be stated in this thread.

This next would probably make a certainty of it.

I imagine anyone familiar with teachings of the more sincere groups probably know much of the stuff contained here already. I can think of at least one girl I know who would disagree on the teaching of eternal burning in the video.
She would point out, and I seem to remember her group using what are termed "Authorized KJV writings", that even terms as otherwise permanent sounding as "forever and ever" in modern language, sometimes meant instead, "with absolute completeness, taking as long as necessary but eventually ending".

I wish I'd studied with her a few more times before she moved away ...
She was something else.

I digress.

Remembering a very special lady from the past, called to mind by the holidays, among other things ...

Anyway.

Here's the video that should provide the clearest key to understanding the perspective of this thread. Understand again, though, I am not ultimately making the focus of this thread much more than corroborating the assertion that DC has co-opted the "script" of these presentations as the meat of many of their storylines.

Luciferianism VS Christianity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCQjQBqOz38
9 min 59 sec

So, with the videos above as barest knowledge base, it becomes possible to do this thread in relatively ordered fashion.

Here, with minor alteration, is the outline that 2nd video gave:

The Beginning
The Fall
The Nephilim
Who is Jesus? (Who is AntiChrist/Beast?)
Redemption
Faith
The Word of God/Prophecy
The End Times

---------------------------

Doubtless I will need to cover and re-order things as people ask clarifying questions, so I won't worry about overmuch about order.
This would never get completed if I did.

I'll go to the default pattern I set forth a page or two ago, filling in as I need.
Got questions? Ask.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isaiah Chapter 14

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/component/content/article/1-jwo/379-apollyon-bible-study.html

Source of scan: Supergirl #74
Writer: Peter A. David
Circa: 2002

Until now my preference was to use KMC's own image host provider.
It still promises the most surety for preservation of images on these boards, so I'll probably still use it occasionally for that.

Unfortunately, I see that, quite unlike times past, KMC no longer allows unregistered people to view KMC images.
More than almost anything, I've always wanted what I post here to be viewable by the widest range of people possible.
Regretfully, then, I ... guess the time for outside IHPs to become MY modus operandi has arrived ...

The following is taken from the first arc of DCnU Wonder Woman.

If you entered the URL from the previous post, you read and perhaps learned something new of Apollo.

My perspective should be starting to come clearer now.

The following scene unfolds as if Azzarello was taking his interpretation of Apollo from the Biblical standpoint as opposed to the more well-known Greek Mythological one.

Or, I suppose one could argue the original Greek interpretation of Apollo, but they're not really all that distinguishable, if so.

At any rate, very much the opposite of how Apollo's been portrayed in the DC Universe PRIOR to 2010 ...

http://oi41.tinypic.com/2s9si93.jpg

http://oi42.tinypic.com/j7f792.jpg

http://oi42.tinypic.com/sesgvb.jpg

http://oi43.tinypic.com/1e5lya.jpg

Source: Wonder Woman #1, Volume 5

The unfortunate reality is that even YouTube videos eventually get removed. If the same fate befalls the clips I found and posted earlier occurs, nothing will be here in this thread to help people make sense of anything they are reading.

So, here's the "longhand", as best as I can remember, from what I've read or viewed till now, regarding the overall program of the Bible.

It is the script Luciferianism, reverts, inverts, subverts, what have you.

This and Luciferianism in turn, I would argue, are the scripts that are the basis for much of the symbolic language seen in the superhero comic genre.

And today, arguably, more than ever.

I've based much of the reading I did for research on this Christianity portion from what is termed the "Authorized", as opposed to the quote unquote New, King James Version of the Bible, partly because that version is the most readily research-able and available online. I've also heard it's the most accurate of English language Bible translations available in America.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bible summary, from Christianity's perspective:

God created Man.
God loved and loves Man.
Man, intended to have a long-lasting relationship with God,
is given dominion over the Earth.

Lucifer deceives Man into taking action that, ultimately, will prove fatal for the whole line of Man.

Through procreation, mankind manages to survive, even though individual men do not. Death reigns continually now, but so does life.

Lucifer sets out to destroy the surviving descendants.
Lucifer has enormous power, perhaps enough to destroy the entirety of mankind outright. But he is not permitted to do so.
God prevents it.

However, in the pattern of "The King is dead, long live the King", Lucifer, having effectively wrested Adam's birthright from him, becomes ruler of the world.

God enacts a plan to reconcile mankind to Himself.

Lucifer tries to thwart this plan, still having the eventual goal of mankind's complete annihilation.

Lucifer continues to manifest in various guises, even as he did once before, sometimes receiving praise and worship from man,
alternately harassing him with plagues and calamity.

At some point, in heaven itself, there is direct battle.

Lucifer and the forces arrayed with him are defeated.
Once a son of God, and perhaps the pinnacle of creation,
Lucifer is cast down like lightning from heaven, and largely or wholly confined to Earth.

Knowing he has a relatively short time, Lucifer redoubles his efforts to deceive as many people as he can.
Lucifer even uses counterfeit "Christ" figures, whom he empowers supernaturally. The AntiChrist or "Beast" is one of these.
At the same time, Lucifer manifests more and more as Dragon or Destroyer.

Eventually a point is reached where the direct intervention of God Himself occurs.
Lucifer and all those who have allied with him, despite the apparent power many think they wield at present, are finally defeated.

*looks around*

facepalm

Digi, with as much time as you yourself spend hanging around and contributing to religious topics on KMC forums of all types, don't you think it a little hypocritical to slam a thread concerned with pointing out that DC writers incorporate a significant degree of material derived from religious sources?

What exactly are you symbolically shaking your head about?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Digi, with as much time as you yourself spend hanging around and contributing to religious topics on KMC forums of all types, don't you think it a little hypocritical to slam a thread concerned with pointing out that DC writers incorporate a significant degree of material derived from religious sources?

What exactly are you symbolically shaking your head about?

The fact that you can't seem to arrive at a concise point despite pages of posts. The fact that your initial premise involves a speculative article from over a decade ago as your only outside evidence. The fact that your central thesis (as I understand it) involves so many writers, artists, executives, editorial boards, managing interests, screenwriters, directors, actors, cultural trends, and years, that the collective effort needed to make this kind of thing happen - and keep it a secret from the general public - would shame many world governments in terms of total man-hours. The fact that you pull from such varied sources that my temporary admiration of your research is overwhelmed by the inexplicable confusion that you would attempt to construct a coherent argument from them. And the fact that nowhere in your analysis do you seem to give more than lip service to the possibility that one of numerous less outlandish explanations may explain everything you're presenting.

At least religious or political conspiracy theories deal with things that people dedicate their lives to in a deeply spiritual sense. Though most of those fall on their faces in similarly flawed ways, at least the realm in which the theories reside lend them the facade of plausibility.

So...that. Also, it would only be hypocritical if my position here didn't match my opinions in the religious forum. That you use religion as a debating point, and that I post in the religion forum, is a shoddy link to accuse me of hypocrisy, and I'm a little concerned that you think it's a valid rebuttal of my dismissal here.

In short, some of your observations - that religious imagery is used occasionally - is uncontroversial (it's been happening for decades in all forms of media). The conclusions you draw, however, or rather the conclusions you imply in an oddly roundabout way, are absurd.

Originally posted by Digi
... you can't seem to arrive at a concise point despite pages of posts.

I thought my general point for this thread, outlined on page 1, and repeated several times since then, was and is about as concise as any thread topic:

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
"Comic industry characters and scripts seem to be reflective of, and are perhaps to some degree influenced by, lesser known Judeo-Christian writings. This is perhaps to be expected given the background of the people who originally created the industry to begin with."

I'm understanding the format of KMC threads to be one where, as a matter of course, discussion with other people is involved, questions are asked, evidence is presented, arguments and counterarguments exchanged.

That doesn't happen in one page, or one day.
You can look at your average versus thread and find threads that have literally DOZENS of pages.

Mine is problematic, despite over 500 views garnered during the low attended HOLIDAY season of KMC, and numerous exchanges, because it has reached all of THREE pages in 10 days?

I see you edited your original post.

Let's explore this last sentence you wrote.

Originally posted by Digi
The conclusions you draw ... or rather the conclusions you imply in an oddly roundabout way, are absurd.

Answer for me precisely, please:

What conclusions do you think I'm implying that are so very absurd?

Please give me specifics from this thread. One or two at the least.