Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Yoohwhoo (#281 spoilers)

Expand Messages
  • LarryTheIllini
    Well Dave (through Cerebus) definitely presents an interesting take on the two creation myths in Genesis 1 and 2. YHWH isn t really God? Maybe that explains
    Message 1 of 6 , Sep 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Well Dave (through Cerebus) definitely presents an interesting take
      on the two creation myths in Genesis 1 and 2. YHWH isn't really
      God? Maybe that explains a lot (like any good story).

      Aside to Rick (TTM) Sharer--if Dave thinks that the Genesis 2 version
      is the "woman's version" of the story, doesn't that kind of back up
      Steve B's assertion that the two tales are inconsistent?

      Anyway, I now see that last issue, when Dave had the Woody Allen
      character discuss the YHWH with the missing vowels in the Bible, he
      was talking about the English translated King James Bible, not the
      original Hebrew Scripture (in which, I still maintain ALL the vowels
      are missing, not just those). Having never read a King James version
      before, I never picked up on that, nor did I realize that only
      specific chapters in Genesis refer to YHWH while others refer to
      God. Maybe they really are two different beings, and maybe that does
      explain some things.

      I do think that makes Dave more of a skeptic than he is willing to
      admit. If the Bible is to be taken literally, then you don't GET to
      decide that Genesis 1:4 makes no sense, or that Genesis 2 is
      a "woman's garbling" of what really happened. Once you're allowed to
      do that--to JUDGE the Bible using our INTELLECT--then you've entered
      the realm that Dave dismisses as athiestic whenever anyone other than
      Dave does it. For instance, Genesis 2 DOES say that a man should
      leave his parents and cleave to his wife. Dave has managed to find a
      way to rationalize a way that this his passion for the Bible and his
      detestation of marriage don't seem to be in conflict, but to me, he
      has not preserved the notion that Scripture is 100% accurate while
      doing so.

      In any case, forgetting for the moment what Dave does or doesn't
      believe in real life, as a comic book, #281 was hilarious while also
      making you think seriously about what you really know about the
      Bible. I thought that last issue and this one together read much,
      MUCH better than #280 on its own.

      - Larry Hart
    • rainmandu2
      ... as a comic book, #281 was hilarious while also ... the ... much, ... I suspect that Dave s... I mean, Cerebus (an easy mistake to make these days)
      Message 2 of 6 , Sep 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In cerebus@y..., "LarryTheIllini" <larrytheillini@y...> wrote:

        as a comic book, #281 was hilarious while also
        > making you think seriously about what you really know about
        the
        > Bible. I thought that last issue and this one together read
        much,
        > MUCH better than #280 on its own.
        >
        > - Larry Hart

        I suspect that Dave's... I mean, Cerebus' (an easy mistake to
        make these days) interpretation of the Torah will be going on for
        quite some time. I like what Dave is doing here, in much the
        same way that I like what Alan Moore is doing over in Promethea.
        I especially like the way that Dave is setting up what I believe will
        be the central conflict of "Latter Days" (an intellectual conflict, not
        a physical one), between faith in God and faith in Therapy (the
        modern religion). I suspect that we'll see Cerebus' life improve
        as a result of his faith, while Konigsberg's life becomes a
        complete mess as a result of HIS faith.

        I saw the Peter O'Toole film, "The Ruling Class" the other night.
        It's about a British Lord who believes himself to be God. Lots of
        great "Lord Julius"-type dialogue ("We think you should take a
        wife." "From whom?"), and a wild "fight" scene between Peter
        O'Toole's "God" and some other crazy person's "Electrical God"
        (a thinly-veiled ECT reference). The whole movie (well, the first
        two-thirds of it) had a real "High Society" feel, with some of the
        stuff dealing with religion reminding me (in a weird way) of
        "Church and State." Lots of jabs at marriage that I'm sure Dave
        would appreciate as well. Not for everyone's taste (the shifts
        from comedy to drama to horror might be too much for people
        who are used to movies that fall easily into one category or
        another), but an interesting film nonetheless.

        Rainmandu
      • LarryTheIllini
        ... I ve been trying to keep the distinction between Cerebus s interpretation of the Bible and Dave s. Cerebus is an interesting character to do this with,
        Message 3 of 6 , Sep 2, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In cerebus@y..., "rainmandu2" <rainmandu@e...> wrote:

          > I suspect that Dave's... I mean, Cerebus' (an easy mistake to
          > make these days) interpretation of the Torah will be going on for
          > quite some time. ...

          I've been trying to keep the distinction between Cerebus's
          interpretation of the Bible and Dave's. Cerebus is an interesting
          character to do this with, since he is a complete novice to the Torah
          and is reading it "fresh", without the preconceived notions that
          ANYONE on 21st century earth has, no matter our personal beliefs.

          Cerebus gets the snake "heel vs. foot" thing completely a**-
          backwards. God is talking to the SNAKE in that scene, so "your head"
          is the snake's head, and "their heels" means those of the woman's
          descendants. Cerebus wonders about snakes' heels and snakes who can
          injure men's heads, and as I say, he just gets that wrong. But in
          that case, I think the mistake is Cerebus's, not Dave's. Dave is
          (probably) trying to tell us that EVERYTHING Cerebus says on the
          subject isn't correct.

          The bit about YOOHWHOO thinking she created something when it had
          actually just been created out of her was a bit more
          disturbingly "Dave". This reflects a comment frequent-poster Steve
          B. attributes to Dave about childbirth: (paraphrasing here) If I put
          a turkey in the oven, did the oven bake the turkey? Dave seems to
          think of the woman's role in birth to be that of the
          oven, "forgetting" that each person contributes a genetic half to the
          whole that is the fertilized zygote. In fact, conception (as opposed
          to the childbearing itself) is probably the best metaphor for those
          of us here who think that BALANCE between the genders (rather than
          interchangeability or dominance) is paramount.

          - Larry Hart
        • Rick Sharer
          ... I ve never denied that there are people who *think* that the two accounts are inconsistent...although labeling one as a woman s version doesn t
          Message 4 of 6 , Sep 2, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            --- LarryTheIllini <larrytheillini@...> wrote:

            > Aside to Rick (TTM) Sharer--if Dave thinks that the
            > Genesis 2 version
            > is the "woman's version" of the story, doesn't that
            > kind of back up
            > Steve B's assertion that the two tales are
            > inconsistent?

            I've never denied that there are people who *think*
            that the two accounts are inconsistent...although
            labeling one as a "woman's version" doesn't
            necessarily imply inconsistency.

            TTM



            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
            http://finance.yahoo.com
          • curt_hagenlocher
            ... If you wanted to view Dave s alleged comment differently, you could argue that neither the man nor the woman put the turkey into the oven -- it was G-d
            Message 5 of 6 , Sep 2, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In cerebus@y..., "LarryTheIllini" <larrytheillini@y...> wrote:
              >
              > The bit about YOOHWHOO thinking she created something when it
              > had actually just been created out of her was a bit more
              > disturbingly "Dave". This reflects a comment frequent-poster
              > Steve B. attributes to Dave about childbirth: (paraphrasing
              > here) If I put a turkey in the oven, did the oven bake the
              > turkey? Dave seems to think of the woman's role in birth to
              > be that of the oven, "forgetting" that each person contributes
              > a genetic half to the whole that is the fertilized zygote.

              If you wanted to view Dave's alleged comment differently,
              you could argue that neither the man nor the woman put the
              turkey into the oven -- it was "G-d" that was responsible.

              (Or maybe I just prefer this interpretation because I'd like
              to think that Dave is familiar with the basics of biology.)

              --
              Curt Hagenlocher
              curt@...
            • jamesmoar
              ... Seems likely. I note that Dave said at one point that Latter Days would have a 2-issue prologue, followed by three sections of 11 or 12 issues, before
              Message 6 of 6 , Sep 4, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In cerebus@y..., "rainmandu2" <rainmandu@e...> wrote:
                > --- In cerebus@y..., "LarryTheIllini" <larrytheillini@y...> wrote:
                >
                > as a comic book, #281 was hilarious while also
                > > making you think seriously about what you really know about
                > the
                > > Bible. I thought that last issue and this one together read
                > much,
                > > MUCH better than #280 on its own.
                > >
                > > - Larry Hart
                >
                > I suspect that Dave's... I mean, Cerebus' (an easy mistake to
                > make these days) interpretation of the Torah will be going on for
                > quite some time.

                Seems likely. I note that Dave said at one point that "Latter Days"
                would have a 2-issue prologue, followed by three sections of 11 or 12
                issues, before switching to the current 2-22-12 division. The change
                between issues 279 and 280 would reflect that.


                --
                James Moar
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.