New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Re: Adolph (Lucifer Part 3!)
in reply to a message by overtheclouds
I would immediately think Nazi. Family name or not, there is no good reason to use the name Adolph or Adolf. Nobody can honestly say that the name doesn't immediately make them think of Hitler and the horrible atrocities he committed. Why on Earth would someone burden a child with such a cursed name? Lucifer is mythological and is inaccurately associated with the bible. Adolf is an actual part of history.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
Adolf is indeed an actual part of history, part of one of the blackest pages of history. There is no question about that.
However, you seem to forget that throughout history, Adolf and Adolph have also been borne by nobler and more benign persons than Hitler. People who can be considered as good when compared to Hitler, people who are part of some of the brighter pages of history. Some of them are not simply good, but even holy: there is one saint, a martyr, named Adolf (namely St. Adolf of Osnabrück), while there are two other saints named Adolphus. Other examples of better bearers are the Swedish kings Gustaf II Adolf (1594–1632), Gustaf IV Adolf (1778–1837) and Gustaf VI Adolf (1882–1973), and... Adolph Marx (1888–1961; yes, one of the Marx brothers!).
But for some reason, people forget about the good and only remember the bad, focusing on solely the negative which does not fairly represent the name. Don't people always say that positive is stronger than negative, good is stronger than evil? Then why do we let the evil (in this case, an evil bearer) rule our judgement of a name, rather than the good (in this case, numerous good bearers)? The mere fact that several holy persons bore this name should obliterate the stain that just one evil person made on the name, but we don't allow that to happen. Apparently then, good is not strong enough to obliterate the stain of evil. Kind of hypocritical, as people don't do or don't really believe what they preach then. And because of this, people kind of let evil win in this way. I mean, they allow something that is, by itself, objective and innocent (in this case, a name) to be tainted by evil and to be locked away for good, not recognizing the good parts and not giving it a chance to continue the good it has. This is how people let Hitler win, they give him more attention or "honour" than he deserves by banning this name or putting it into exile... they still let themselves be influenced by him in this way, while he should never have any influence whatsoever on people.
However, you seem to forget that throughout history, Adolf and Adolph have also been borne by nobler and more benign persons than Hitler. People who can be considered as good when compared to Hitler, people who are part of some of the brighter pages of history. Some of them are not simply good, but even holy: there is one saint, a martyr, named Adolf (namely St. Adolf of Osnabrück), while there are two other saints named Adolphus. Other examples of better bearers are the Swedish kings Gustaf II Adolf (1594–1632), Gustaf IV Adolf (1778–1837) and Gustaf VI Adolf (1882–1973), and... Adolph Marx (1888–1961; yes, one of the Marx brothers!).
But for some reason, people forget about the good and only remember the bad, focusing on solely the negative which does not fairly represent the name. Don't people always say that positive is stronger than negative, good is stronger than evil? Then why do we let the evil (in this case, an evil bearer) rule our judgement of a name, rather than the good (in this case, numerous good bearers)? The mere fact that several holy persons bore this name should obliterate the stain that just one evil person made on the name, but we don't allow that to happen. Apparently then, good is not strong enough to obliterate the stain of evil. Kind of hypocritical, as people don't do or don't really believe what they preach then. And because of this, people kind of let evil win in this way. I mean, they allow something that is, by itself, objective and innocent (in this case, a name) to be tainted by evil and to be locked away for good, not recognizing the good parts and not giving it a chance to continue the good it has. This is how people let Hitler win, they give him more attention or "honour" than he deserves by banning this name or putting it into exile... they still let themselves be influenced by him in this way, while he should never have any influence whatsoever on people.
2