Sunday, 19 May 2019

TL:DR: The Genesis Question part fifty-four

Hi, Everybody!

So, two things:

1, the bizness:
If you got a couple of extra bucks and want to do a fellow Cerebus fan a solid, frequent commentator Mike Battaglia has a go fund me here  

The Green Dante/Green Virgil cover auction is NOW at $1300 US Dollars from: Jeff Seiler! If you want in on this action, just comment on this post, or e-mail

Friend to the Blog, and the guy who doesn't like you, and his friends don't like you either (but in Klingon,): Steve Peters has another Kickstarter going. (I have a joke in one panel.)

The remastered Volume 1 is available digitally for $9.99.

The second Postcard From Hell Kickstarter is up. 
2, I ran out of pages from issue 289/290 to run in front of Dave's Genesis Question commentaries. Dave suggested I use Jewish, Christian or Muslim religious images. But then, Superman's Frenemy: David Birdsong sent in a bunch of (so far) unused Cerebus in Hell? images and now I'ma gonna run them. So:
image by Doré, Sim & Birdsong
8 February 15

Hi Troy and Mia!

Proverbs 8:22-31.  I'm not sure Mr.Ross should just be diving into the middle of Proverbs 8 -- as if it can be sensibly divorced from its earlier verses -- OR that I should be commenting on it in the same way.  So, let's do a quick run-through of the first 21 verses:

The Proverb begins "Doth not Wisdom cry? & Understanding put forth her voice?"  Problematic (in my view) is the capitalization on "wisdom" which compels a Deistic inference:  Wisdom and Understanding as goddesses (based on the feminine pronoun).   There's obviously no way, as human beings, to arrive at definitive answers to these questions, but I think the problem with defining attributes of God as Deistic Beings in Their Own Right is self-evident: you get yourself onto the slippery slope of polytheism and begin defining yourself and your beliefs away from monotheism. 

I see it as inherently prejudicial that the Proverbs are attributed to Solomon, the son of the illicit union between David and Bathsheba, he of the Many Strange Wives and Concubines.  It isn't surprising that such an individual would adopt a theological worldview that merges god and goddess worship -- many, if not most, of his wives were from goddess-worshipping societies -- but, to me, that militates against taking his theological views too seriously and certainly not at face value. 

"She standeth in the top of the high places" [the high places were the places of pagan worship in Israel] "by the way in the places of the paths.  She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors" the Proverb continues.

And then transitions into what would appear to be a direct address from this -- definitively, according to Solomon -- female entity:  "Unto you, O men, I call, and my voice to the sons of man.  O ye simple, understand wisdom: and ye fools be of an understanding heart.  Hear, for I will speak of excellent things: and the opening of my lips, right things."

There's a significant difference between the original Hebrew on the next verse and the KJV translation.  The original Hebrew has verse 7 as "For my mouth shall speak truth, and wickedness the abomination OF my lips" which the KJV converts to "For my mouth shall speak truth and wickedness [interpolated: is] an abomination TO my lips." Which is a completely understandable change -- if you're determined to make the narrating voice inherently good, godly and, in fact, God -- but requires changing the inherent meaning of what is being expressed to do so. 

This is compounded in the next verse:  "All the words of my mouth [interpolated: are] in righteousness, [interpolated: there is] nothing [Hebrew: wreathed KJV: froward] or perverse in them."

My suspicions are definitely aroused when someone comes right out and says that there is nothing perverse in what they're saying.  If that's true, why would you feel the need to say so? Which is not to say that there isn't some measure of demonstrable wisdom being enunciated in Solomon's description.  The next three verses, taken together, certainly appear to me to constitute a wise philosophy:

"They [interpolated: are] all plain to him that understandeth: and right to them that find knowledge.  Receive my instruction, and not silver: and knowledge rather than choice gold.  For wisdom [interpolated: is] better than rubies: and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it."

However, Solomon then appears to swerve away from solid wisdom-as-theological foundation and, again, into wisdom as a separate being with, as I read them, curious -- if not perverse -- attributes : "I, wisdom, dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions."  Nothing against "witty inventions" but, personally, I would incline towards seeing them as dichotomous from wisdom. 

And then appears, to me, to swerve even further afield from wisdom:  "The fear of the YHWH [interpolated: is] to hate evil: pride and arrogance and the evil way, and the froward mouth do I hate."  It seems to me that "the fear of the YHWH to hate evil" is one of those YHWHistic assertions that you can examine from every possible angle and still not come up with anything lucid. 

But, then Solomon appears to swerve back again:  "Counsel [interpolated: is] mine, and sound wisdom: I [interpolated: am] understanding; I [interpolated: have] strength". 

I say "appears" because there are various constructions that can be attached to it.  As attributes of wisdom (itself an attribute), it would be hard to disagree that they include "Counsel, mine and sound wisdom: I, understanding; I, strength." 

On the other hand, if Solomon is describing himself , that would seem to me to be a "witty invention" in itself:  the YHWH, through Solomon, deploring pride and arrogance but then inducing Solomon to express pride and arrogance in himself.

This same dualistic "witty invention" appears to continue through the narrative: the compelled inference (as I read it) of attributes of the attribute of wisdom being mostly or entirely irrefutable, while also capable of being read as self-aggrandizement both on the YHWH's and Solomon's part: "By me, kings reign, and princes decree justice.  By me princes rule, and nobles, [interpolated: even] all the Judges of the earth. I love them that love me, and those that seek me early shall find me."  Of course kings don't reign exclusively by wisdom, nor do princes necessarily decree justice (by wisdom or otherwise).  But that's part of what makes the assertions "proverbial".  Certainly the most successful and enduring rule of princes and nobles and judges  is founded in wisdom. 

And the assertion "I love them that love me, and those that seek me early shall find me" seems, to me, a very wise expression, not only of the Greek concept of agape -- wisdom-based love -- but also of the gravitational nature of wisdom, a spiritual attraction analogous to that expressed by the term "love" that is reciprocal:  gravitating towards wisdom causes wisdom to gravitate towards you. 

Solomon continues in this, as I read it, dualistically fruitful (describing wisdom as an attribute) and self-aggrandizing (potentially personalizing himself AS wisdom) train of thought:

"Riches and honour [interpolated: are] with me, yea, durable riches and righteousness.  My fruit [interpolated: is] better than gold, yea than fine gold, and my revenue than choice silver.  I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgement, that I may cause those that love me, to inherit substance: and I will fill their treasures."

Which brings us to Mr. Ross'  excerpt:  

The YHWH possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

It's an interesting question which, I think, only God could answer definitively.  Was the YHWH possessed of wisdom "in the beginning of his way, before his works of old"?  That would depend, I think, on what is meant by "his way" and "his works of old".  This might be just another "witty invention":  that the YHWH had been in possession of whatever in-dwelling spirit within Solomon is expressing itself in Proverbs 8 and that that spirit dates back to "the beginning of his way, before his works of old" and is using that foundational fact to attempt to establish deistic "bona fides" for the YHWH: 

I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

Again, I think only God could definitively refute or endorse the assertion, depending again on how you (or the narrator of Proverbs 8) define "set up" "everlasting", "the beginning" "ever the earth was" and "possessed".  Obviously the YHWH is attempting to establish pre-existence:  that the YHWH existed before God did and is, in fact, God.  But it is an interesting question:  when DID the YHWH begin to exist?  How far back does the YHWH go?  My own inference is that the YHWH, in his her its seminal form, was God's first creation, but that's just human inference, not definitive wisdom-based knowledge.  "Ever the earth was" is an even more intricate question:

When [interpolated: there were] no depths, I was brought forth: when [interpolated: there were] no fountains abounding with water.

Again, this is way above my pay scale.  :)   However, I think, this verse ventures into blasphemous areas in the seminal sense that it appears to express itself.  If what is being discussed is the oceans' depths on earth, earthly "fountains abounding with water", then I think it likely that the consciousness of the earth, the YHWH's soul, was pre-existent to the defining incarnation of the earth-as-constituted as described in Genesis 1.

And I think that pre-existence goes back a very LONG way:  that the YHWH which IS the earth, which inhabits the earth was, at one time, part of the starry mass that became the sun just as the starry mass that became the sun was part of the exponentially larger stellar mass that makes up our galaxy, just as the stellar mass that makes up our galaxy was part of the still exponentially larger stellar mass that makes up the Milky Way, and so on and so on and so on back to the Big Bang.  In each case -- but, in my system of belief ONLY back to the Big Bang -- there would have been a "prior YHWH" which existed previous to the physical incarnation under discussion.

But, really, it seems to me to be only that verse.  Everything comes back to the tiny confines of the earth, subsequently.  The KJV doesn't capitalize "He" but I think as long as the "he's" are capitalized, this part of Proverbs 8 can be read either as a simple reiteration of Genesis 1 as the YHWH experienced it or as a delusional false YHWH memory (only God could say for certain):

Before the mountains were settled: before the hills, was I brought forth:

While as yet He had not made the earth nor the fields [alternative translation: open places] nor the [highest/chief part] of the dust of the world

When He prepared the heavens, I was there.  When He set a [compass/circle] upon the face of the depth

When He established the clouds above: when He strengthened the fountains of the deep.

When He gave to the sea His decree, that the waters should not pass His commandment, when He appointed the foundations of the earth

It's really only at the "finish line" of Mr. Ross's extract that the narrator appears to again stumble into blasphemous or near-blasphemous areas which compel the KJV translators into theological gymnastics:

Then I was by Him, [interpolated: as] one brought up [interpolated: with him]: and was daily [interpolated: his] delight, rejoicing always before Him

You have only to read the original sense:  "Then I was by him, one brought up, and was daily delight, rejoicing always before him" and compare it to the KJV mutation: "Then I was by him, as one brought up with him, and was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him." to see the Christian "skew":  Wisdom as the Son, Wisdom as the Church, Wisdom as God's Beloved. 

Which I infer was intentional on God's part. 

A lot of the idea that I see behind the creation of the two Christs, the Synoptic Jesus and the Johannine Jesus, was to address this issue of pre-existence in the YHWH's own frames of reference.  Distilled as: "If you want to get into issues of pre-existence and complicate them with the personalizing and deification of Wisdom -- and further complicate things with 'witty inventions' like a personalized 'prudence' 'understanding' and 'strength -- and if you think that those issues are going to favour the case of the YHWH, well, there are many stages to incarnation as decreed by God."

I think that's a lot of the idea behind the first chapter of John's Gospel and what I see as its intricate but definitive "last word" (actually "first word") on pre-existence:

In beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward the God, and God was the Word.  This was in beginning toward the God.  All through him came to be, and apart from him came to be not/however one. 

THAT, it seems to me, is directed specifically at the YHWH's misapprehension of pre-existence.  The Seminal Word was prior to the Seminal YHWH.  "All THROUGH him came to be…".   The Word was the means by which all further creation was effected.  "…and APART from him came to be NOT one" which needs, I think, to be understood (in conformity with the merged Greek term "not however") in tandem with "…and APART from him came to be HOWEVER one".  "Not one" and "however one", simultaneously.  Basically what we know through physics as the "wave/particle".  There and Not There, simultaneously.

John 1 then goes on, as I read it, to describe the nature of this entity created by God's Word:

Which has come to be in him life was, and the life was the light of the men. And the light in the darkness is shining and the darkness it not overpowered. 

This, as I read it, is pre-existent to the YHWH, in the creation of the earth, the sun, our galaxy, the Milky Way and (I infer) is universally misunderstood by all YHWHs high and low.  Which is why God deems it necessary -- having allowed the YHWH thousands of years to enunciate his/her/its doctrine of pre-existence -- to incarnate someone to express this fundamental truth:

Came to be man having been sent forth beside God...

[Note: BESIDE God.  BESIDE being analogous, conceptually, to TOWARD God (the descriptor of The Word).  This is the stature that the YHWH, through Solomon, misapprehends and attempts to usurp in Proverbs 8:30.  BESIDE God is a foundational state but it's not one that belongs to the YHWH.]

…name to him, John; this came into witness in order that he might witness about the light in order that all might believe through him.  Not was that the light but in order that he might witness about the light.  Was the light the true which is enlightening every man coming into the world. In the world he was and the world through him came to be, and the world him not knew.

The Word, followed by the Light which is Beside God.  The creation of the YHWH -- the world -- is subsequent to that.

As I read it.

Mr. Ross' excerpt from Proverbs 8 concludes:

Rejoicing in the habitable part of the earth, and my delights [interpolated: were] with the sons of men.

Which I would infer is authentic memory on the part of the YHWH.  This is the YHWH's earliest memory of habitation "in the habitable part of the earth".  I would also infer that the YHWH's active, awakened consciousness didn't actually occur for a long time after the establishment of the foundations of the earth, that there was no need for an "awake" YHWH until long after, say, the age of dinosaurs -- that the YHWH only fully awakened as an entity with the creation of man. 

Not the creation of A Dam, which I infer was just the beginning of this epoch. A Dam is our epoch's first man, but not the first man to walk the earth.  However many epochs there have been prior to this one (a number known only to God) each, I infer, involved the creation of "seminal man" and subsequent erosion of his context into apocalypse, the dregs of which still existed as the events of Genesis began to enact themselves.  Genesis itself documents, I think, two microcosms of this process:  the creation of A Dam and then the eradication of all life in the flood followed by the re-starting of this epoch with the sons of Noah.

You have to go WAY back, but it seems there was a time when the YHWH could say "my delights with the sons of men". 

Proverbs 8 itself ends with:

Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed  [interpolated: are they that] keep my ways.

Hear instruction, and be wise and refuse it not.

It's not as if the YHWH is oblivious to God or to godly virtues.  That's a big part of the process of enactment (I infer) for which the YHWH was created and incarnated.  The YHWH is -- and was -- expected to infer that he/she/it was God and to attempt to behave accordingly.  As the YHWH instructs, so is the YHWH instructed: "hear instruction, and be wise and refuse it not".   

Blessed the man that heareth me: watching daily at my gates: waiting at the posts of my doors.

It's an imperfect process.  This passage itself seems to hearken back to the entirely unjust expulsion of A Dam from the Garden of Eden and the unjust rejection of Cain's offering of "the fruit of the ground" in favour of Hebel's blood sacrifice -- all of which A Dam could only watch helplessly from the entryway to the Garden.  As the YHWH put it to Cain:  "Why art thou wroth?  And why is thy countenance fallen?" 

Well,  basically, because blood sacrifice of animals is wrong.

 And Cain knew that.

And justifiably rebelled against it.

 "If thou do well, shalt thou not have the excellency?  And if thou do NOT well…" (gesturing, I infer, significantly to A Dam Expelled) … "sin croucheth at the door." Sacrifice animals like your brother or join your father outside the Garden.

Completely unjust, but all part of the enactment that the YHWH was created for: an active illustration of why Being God is a lot more difficult than it looks, a point the YHWH keeps missing:  

For whoso findeth me, findeth life, and shall [Hebrew: bring forth; KJV: obtain] favour of the YHWH.

But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul; all they that hate me love death.

I don't think anyone loves death and I don't think anyone especially hates the YHWH.  But men do, by nature, by the light they are granted by God, rebel against injustice.  Sometimes justice and the YHWH align and sometimes justice and the YHWH are diametrically opposed to each other.  That, it seems to me, is all part of the process of acquiring wisdom -- an attribute, not a being -- over the long term on the part of men and the YHWH.  Three steps forward, two steps back, usually.

Next week: God willing, Ecclesiastes 3:11!


Next Time: Man I'm still strung out from Dave's birthday bash. What a rager...-Past Matt

Saturday, 18 May 2019

The Ol' AMOC Mailbag: David Johnson

Hi, Everybody!

If you got a couple of extra bucks and want to do a fellow Cerebus fan a solid, frequent commentator Mike Battaglia has a go fund me here (Dave talked about it last Friday.)

The Green Dante/Green Virgil cover auction is NOW at $1300 US Dollars from: Jeff Seiler!!! If you want in on this action, just comment on this post, or e-mail

Friend to the Blog, and the guy who passed a non-binding resolution to gauge support among the Senate affirming the fundamental right of Naboo to withhold financial remuneration to the Trade Federation subsequent to the addendum ending the second phase of the continued summit establishing a work group studying the long term effects of the resolution ending the Trade Federation's quasi-legal occupation of Naboo, while topless like Kirk: Steve Peters has another Kickstarter going. (I have a joke in one panel.)

The remastered Volume 1 is available digitally for $9.99.

The second Postcard From Hell Kickstarter is up. 

And from the depths of the Ol' AMOC Mailbag, comes:

(So, in this month's Please Hold For Dave Sim, I talked about an e-mail I got from David Johnson, that I had faxed up to Dave to get his take on it. This is that message.)

Matt, this is David Johnson, who has started to comment recently on Dave's Commentaries posts on your A Moment Of Cerebus. I use to write Dave from 2003 - 7, and he answered my letters in Cerebus # 300, Collected Letters, and personally. I want to thank you for doing AMOC,
[Okay, I'm going to comment in BOLD. -Matt (I'm also NOT correcting any misspellings...)]

You're welcome. 
for your once a week phone videos and transcripts, and more.
Um... the calls are monthly. Dave DOES post a video weekly, the transcripts are done when I get around to it. (Hopefully soon...)
Recenently, I have again started writing Dave again, and had such some questions about if or if not in his opinion, that I signed his petition before it started, again 6 years ago with Margret Liss, and again at the same time with Max at CerebusTV, and this past week with my new letter I faxed to him, and a few days later a condensed 1 page version of the petition. I totally agree with Dave's petition and am also myself an anti-feminist, who does not hate women. I am also a monotheist like Dave and some of his fans are, and a follower of Jesus Christ. 
I'd assume if you signed the petition six years ago, and you still don't think Dave Sim is a misogynist, then "Bob's your uncle," but I'm sure Margaret can let you know if your name is on or not.
Therefore, because of my and Dave's different views on Jesus and Muhammad, but not over his petition, I asked him if he would accept my latteral petition,
Jesus and Muhammad don't have anything to do with it. "I don't believe Dave Sim is a misogynist." If you agree with the statement, sign the petition. If you don't agree with the statement, DON'T sign the petition. This is not rocket surgery. I believe you're bringing WAY to much baggage to this. 

It's REAL simple. "I don't believe Dave Sim is a misogynist." "Yes" or "No".
while comparing it to how the Amish by law do not have to sign and receive numbers for such and such government identification, and tax and/or health insurance related forms, because the government supplies them with another form they may fill out, which is not counted or named with the others, but still a part of the rest.
Too much baggage. You're overthinking this. 
I am also willing to do this with Margret too, and will try emailing her this part of my email to you to her today.
In relation, I told Dave that, to me, the closeness in relation to his petition, with Cerebus's Son's which Cerebus singed in # 299, after much dispute back and forth with each other, where otherwise he would not talk to Cerebus,
Let me stop you right there. This is Wrong. Cerebus NEVER signed a petition. He did sign a statement. And it WASN'T Sheshep's, it was the Upper Feldan Foo-Foo's:

Edited to eliminate a bunch of panels of Cerebus standing around.

in relation to Dave's views on God and Islam, has me much wondering if Dave's petition is subtly being used by him to identify, who his Rick like anti-feminist readers are (Who do not sign his petition/ do what I did/ don't write him at all because he wants them to know he is too busy to respond, but its OK to fax or call in small talk, get an autograph at shows and such/ all of these combined or something else.),
Yeah, totally overthinking this... 
in contrast to his Cerebus' Son like feminist readers are (Who sign the petition.).
It's really just the one declarative statement. Either you DO think Dave is a misogynist, or you DON'T think Dave is a misogynist. That's ALL the petition is. Bringing all this other baggage to it is unnecessary.  

In relation to his unique thinking on things, I also asked, if Cerebus' Son being a feminist Muslim,
He wasn't. Sheshep WAS a feminist (or at least the Estarcion equivalent,) but he wasn't a Muslim. He DID warn Cerebus about the Muslims, but he wasn't a Muslim.

The Last Day page 222

was Dave's way of implying to readers, that the one's who don't sign Dave's are being like Rick who submitted to Godly suffering, in contrast to those who do, as being one's who in their own unsubmission to the obvious, making Dave and Cerebus out in their own minds, to be like Cerebus' Son, by signing Dave's petition, because Dave isn't like his Son at all, which, if I am right, would prove Dave is making the subtle point that all who sign it, are making the same mistake Cerebus did, which was his last mistake which made God cut him off and he went to hell.
Boy howdy, do I hate Pronouns!  "Dave isn't like his Son at all"? Whose son? Cerebus'? Dave's? God's? 

I mean, (barring an old flame dropping the mother of all surprises on Dave for his birthday,) Dave doesn't have a son. 

Yes, Dave isn't anything like Sheshep, Cerebus' son, but that's because Dave isn't a feminist. (Or fictional.)

Also, signing the statement isn't what got Cerebus sent to Hell?. Throwing the baby, that was what got Cerebus sent to Hell?. And raping Astoria. And beheading Boreleans. Killing all those guys. Fornicating with Joanne. Swearing. Being a degenerate titty-bar owner. Pretty much every decision Cerebus made for three hundred issues.

(And then there's the ? in Cerebus in Hell? which implies that Cerebus might not be in Hell.)
I know you know exaxlctly what it is that I am talking about,
Betcha five bucks you don't...
because we all know how unique Dave's thinking is concerning such things either way. Take into consideration, how he was open to letting Mr. Sciver work with him,
Van Sciver. VAN. I may not like the guy, but I TRY not to screw up his name.
which you were ready to cut Dave off for.
Say wha? 
First, Matt, in my thinking, I too didn't want it to happen, and am glad that God took a bad thing and made it into a good, and Mr. Sciver walked away.
That's...that's an..."interesting" way of looking at Dave getting his name drug through the mud. Again.
But, Dave is his own man and it was a business decision, and you know that two working on a project have to communicate between each other.
You have a family and know these things.
I DO have a family. (Ain't nobody know what things you're talking about...) 
I was sad to see you almost cut Dave off after all he had did for you.
Whatchu talking 'bout David Johnson?

When the F***(!!!!!) did I "almost cut Dave off"? 

I reported the FACT that SOME people had talked about cutting Dave off if he worked with Mr. Van Sciver. But I NEVER said anything about ME cutting him off. 

In point of fact, every time CyberFrog came up, I was lauded for how fair and even-handed I was in my "reporting" (and, yes, those quotation marks need to be there. Walter Cronkite was a reporter, I blog about a comic that ended fifteen years ago. (Bit of a drop off there, is what I'm saying...)). 

The ONLY time I wasn't fair and even-handed was AFTER Mr. Van Sciver and Dave parted ways and I called EVS a chicken-shit. 

But I never "almost cut Dave off".
I am not mad at you though.
Well that's nice.

And, just to be clear, I'm not mad either. Slightly annoyed. But that's a nearly universal condition, at this point.
I'm glad you're still communicating,
Well, Dave calls me. If he suddenly stops, I know I'm in the doghouse... 
and want you and everyone to know that Dave doesn't have it out for you or any of us.
Except for that ONE GUY (he KNOWS who he is...) 
Dave has in the past during the petition period, done work for hire, reviews of others creations, and such with others who haven't signed his petition,
I'm a little fuzzy on the timeline, "work for hire"? Was this when Dave was trying to raise the money to buy out Gerhard's share of Aardvark-Vanaheim?

Because THAT (paying off Ger) took precedent over any philosophical stance Dave may have had. (Although, (and I'm probably wrong on this, so when the Peanut Gallery shows up to tell me I'm wrong: I know guys, I know...) I believe Ted Adams at IDW signed, so that would invalidate your point for Dave's IDW covers.
and even verbally saluted those who at least had the boldness to say, they wouldn't sign his petition for whatever reason, but respected him for it and his work, and wanted him and others to know it.
I'm gonna need more specifics. Who did Dave "verbally salute" and when? 
Yet, some of Dave's own familiar so-called petition readers,
Do you mean "petition signers"? Because "petition readers" is anybody who has ever read the petition. Even the people who read it and said, "Yeah, no. Dave's a misogynist." Which, ya know, who cares?
have disrespected Dave, Cerebus,
Hey, 100% agreement with Dave isn't a requirement to post comments around here.

Hell, I think Dave was an idiot when he threw away his second set of the negatives to the first three(? or was it four?) phonebooks. When Sandeep's apartment burned down with the negatives to High Society (and Cerebus?), Dave could have had a second set, but he decided to throw out all the negatives to the Bi-Weeklies, because he didn't think he needed them.

I mean, I said at the time that he threw them out, that he could have SOLD them and made some money. 

But it is what it is, and Sean's doing a dynamite job restoring Cerebus with what he has available.
and God, when Dave has made it clear to everyone that God is everything to him.
Okay, here's where the problem starts.

Dave believes that the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran document the on-going dialogue between God and YHWH. And follows all three faiths (Judism, Christianity, and Islam).

You, as you said above, identify as a Christian (and I assume,) DON'T agree with Dave that the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran document the on-going dialogue between God and YHWH. And probably (again I assume,) DON'T think that God and YHWH are two separate entities.

There are many people who comment here, who DON'T think God and YHWH are two separate entities.

Some of them don't think God and/or YHWH are even real.

So, if they, or you, voice your disagreement with Dave's views, is that disrespect?

Also, how is disagreeing with Dave's views disrespecting God?

I mean, you seem to equate Dave with God almost interchangeably. I have to say, that I believe that Dave would probably disagree with you on that.
So, in my case, sincerely believing that God used Dave, known to Dave or not, to end Cerebus # 300 in such a way, that with him answering my letters first in back,
That's one way of looking at it. I pulled my copy of issue 300 out and took a look. I'd say, that Dave talked about you, and excerpted from your letters. I wouldn't say he "answered" them.
that I believe that was God's way of showing me, Sgt. Brian Lee Moore, and Dave's Old Laywer (The other 2 Dave replied to.),
And Adam Beechen. Don't forget Adam Beechen, the guy after you. Then it was Sgt. Brian L. Moore. And then Wilf Jenkins, Q.C. (Dave's former lawyer).
that we were suppossed to be like Rick's of our time, and like Cerebus would've been if he hadn't chosen to sign his Son's petition,
Cerebus didn', I already covered this... 
and earlier on led his people to freedom in the name of God.
 Wait, what? 
Seeing, Cerebus signing the petition was Cerebus' final mistake, I can't bring myself to sign Dave's as it is, or else I think I will be not submitting to God, and disrespecting Dave and others.
Others? And, again, I think you're bringing too much baggage to this. If you don't think Dave is a misogynist, sign. If you do, don't.

Likewise, if I am right or not, I also explained to Dave that I think some of the readers are already reinventing Cerebus in their own feminist anti-God and anti-Jesus image, like it or not to Dave or anyone.
Back in 2007 Dave implied to us the readers, that he had turned the keys of Cerebus, the off white house, and such to the inmates of the asylum.
Twelve years ago. Man, I can't even remember this. Where/when did Dave say this?
We all know that Dave's point with # 186, was that the feminists win, and when they ask him next, "Now what?," that the answer is, "I don't know? You tell me."
I don't think that applies to Cerebus. If we, the fans/readers ask "Hey Dave, what's going on with Cerebus?" I don't think he's going to answer, "You tell me?" I think he'll tell us what's going on with Cerebus. Or The Strange Death of Alex Raymond. Or You Don't Know Jack. Or his wrist, or anything anybody asks.

I ask you, look at where we all are at right now, with where Dave's at, with weekly doing his updates on Cerebus Live, his once a month phone conversations with you, Cerebus In Hell every month and such, and do you or does anyone else not at all see, that Dave is giving us whatever we want, and in a fashion, when asking him, "What next Dave?," isn't he telling us back, "I don't know. You guys are doing Cerebus In Hell and such. All of you do what you want, and I'll finish up the rest?" Do you not see this starting to happen right after # 300, with Following Cerebus, Cerebus The Movie, CerebusTV, and such? No, I don't. I think Dave's trying to keep the lights on. And remaster all the phonebooks, AND keep them all in print. AND AND finish The Strange Death of Alex Raymond.

The guy making the movie,
Oliver Simonsen. (Hi Oliver!) 
almost told Dave he was going to do whatever he wanted to do with it, when Dave had already told him no.
No, (and Oliver can correct me if I'm wrong,) Dave told Oliver that Dave wouldn't sign off on the Cerebus Animated film until Oliver has a COMPLETED film.
IDW is still treating Dave like they own The Strange Death Of Alec Robinson,
The Strange Death of Alex Raymond.
and since day one, and with all the covers, pin-ups, short stories, and such he has done for them and everyone, they have been trying to act like Cerebus and Dave belong to them.
(Unless I missed something, and I plan on double checking with Dave,) IDW gave Dave an advance against royalties for The Strange Death of Alex Raymond, so in a sense, they DO own it. (Although, I think Dave paid them back? This sound familiar to anybody?)

As to the covers and stuff, that was Work-For-Hire, so that DOES belong to IDW (or the respective rights holders). 
He helped them and others in the self publishers world to exist.
That's a..."generous" way of looking at it. (Dave didn't create the Direct Market, but he was an early success story from it.)

I don't understand, why Dave isn't publishing CIH under his Aardvark-Vanaheim, Inc. lable,
He is. 
and for a lot cheaper than $5.00 like every other comic is priced,
I know I'm a few months behind, but I thought it was $4? And aren't most Marvel and DC books $3.99 now?
like how Cerebus was always a lot cheaper than everyone else,
Yeah, I don't remember if Cerebus was that much cheaper... 
unless I am right, and his point is that, like he said, Cerebus was over with # 300, and he went to hell, and so CIH would only be his way of showing Cerebus is still over, which is why he's doing it through IDW,
Except, Dave's not. The Cerebus in Hell? books are ALL published by Aardvark-Vanaheim. 
and having it always be a new # 1 stand alone monthly looping issue.
That's a gimmick. #1 issues sell better. By making each issue a #1, the hope is stores will order more copies. (I don't know if it's working, Ben? Sean? David Birdsong? Any info would be great fellas.)
Before CIH, that Cerebus In Hell, where he was only there being tortured, I thought was enough for readers to get the point, but they asked for more Cerebus and Jaka living happily ever after.
I tell you all of these things because, I think Dave is trying to get you to see his point. I know AMOC is yours,
Technically. (But only until the guy who runs the blog devoted to Archie's Pal Jughead retires, then I'm gonna blow this Popsicle Stand and run that.) (I'm joking, I'm joking. Calm down Seiler...)
but by doing that, and calling Dave once a month,
Dave calls me. It was his idea. And every month I tell him that if he doesn't want to call, I'm totally okay with that. 

I'm VERY much aware how lucky I am that he DOES call. As I've told him, it's like being a Shakespearean scholar, and having Bill (his friends call him "Bill") calling you and answering every question you have about The Taming of the Shrew.
you're making him a part of it, and so Dave is hoping maybe you and others will at least acknowlwdge that God is everything to him,
Oh, I'm very much aware of Dave and his religious views. 

Which brings me to MY religious views.

I've been mentally writing a Position Statement for the past few years, and now's as good a time as any to actually write it down. (With the caveat, that I freely admit that I'm probably wrong...)

I'm VERY much an Agnostic. 

The best way I have to describe my views is: I believe in the Transamerica Bulding in San Francisco. I believe it was intelligently designed, and built. I don't think it was carved out of the bedrock at the end of the last Ice Age. BUT, I don't think that after it was built that the architect then moved into the building as a custodian/concierge to the people that moved in.

So, I believe that there MAY be a God, but I don't think he gives a shit what you had for lunch.

I see no real concrete evidence that there is some supreme being looking out for everything.

At best, the universe may have had a creator, but after creation, I don't think that said creator became a caretaker. If anything, Some entity, call it God if you want, seeded the Earth with life, but if so, it was simple single cell organisms that then evolved over millions of years into what we know of as life today.

My view is that IF there is a God, and IF said God is TRULY all-knowing, all-powerful, and everywhere, and also that this God has some complex plan that involves every single person who has ever lived or ever will live, then that makes the universe into a giant Rube Goldberg machine. And, I just don't think so.

I could go on, but unless I'm asked. I'll stop.
and that's the point to Cerebus, CIH, and the rest. Yes, he has told you all basically that Cerebus belongs to all of you, but he wants all of you to see the point.
Yeah, I missed the point, what was it?

I am glad you're posting the commentaries, but that was something people running AMOC long before you should have started first.
That'd be Tim. And he ran AMOC his way, and told me to do whatever I wanted. (In fact, he recently e-mailed me about something, and when I mentioned a couple of regular commenters, he admitted he hadn't thought of them in eighteen months. So anybody holding their breath waiting for Tim's triumphant return is... dead. I mean, come on, it's been a year and a half. Nobody can hold their breath that long. Also, Tim's not coming back.)
Dave has even suggested to you that another commentary run in AMOC
Uh...when was this? When I asked Dave if he had any Bible commentaries, he said he didn't think anybody would be interested. (And only sent what I've run because I asked.)
or somewhere each week, with or beside the one on Sundays. Not you or anyone has to do that because they're your and their pages, but Dave and people like me are saying, if all of you are going to be the future holders of the off white house estate and Cerebus, then may all of you at least acknowledge that he and others like us, are followers of God, and that Cerebus' point is about God?

AMOC rightly acknowledges that it isn't Dave's page or opinions or such, but can you please acknowledge that God is ours?
Um... I'm misreading that. God is your what?
Yes, Cerebus is going to belong to all of you someday, but that doesn't change what I am saying, or what Dave is doing. I, Dave, and others are saying, all of you are the readers. There's not anyone else to say it. Dave said it all the time from his conversion until this day, but he has mostly stopped since # 300, seeing he was done, but I do wish he would tell his testimony more, but I think he depends much on all of you, with your auctions and such to survive.
I think I get what your driving at. Maybe.
If not for Gerhard asking him to buy out his share, Dave could've spent the rest of his life comfortably doing drawings for himself, whatever struck him, and retiring.
Remember when Dave "retired" and was soon spending twelve hours a day answering his mail? Dave's a workaholic...
You see, that post-Cerebus, his voice has been with Judashaus,
and now SDOAR. Glamourpuss was just his way of having fun and again subtily implying, what I've already said with CIH and such.

glamourpuss #1 page 4

glamourpuss #1 page 5
 I'm sorry, you were saying...

You can tell Judashaus
and SDOAR, have been his mostly only serious works, which is why he's taking so much time on SDOAR, but I wish he would concentrate on the more needful thing of sharing Christ's gospel, and feeding Jesus' sheep.
Like it says at the top of the blog, I'm NOT Dave Sim, (and also, an avowed Agnostic,) but I'm fairly certain that Dave would just tell people to read the Bible and the Koran, and make up their own minds.
Now, Gerhard, Brian Coppola, and Carson Grubaugh, have the shame to do their unauthorized Cerebus short story called Take On Me,
Yeah, I should really link that. Oh wait...
which Brian admits is there way of confronting Dave, because in their opinions, he implied in Cerebus that all of us readers are maroons for not believing in God.
Yeah, I haven't read Brian's commentary on Take On Me yet.
Does not anyone remember, what happened between Dave and Jeff Smith?
Now, Gerhard, Brian, and Carson are in a fashion forcing Dave in his own house. Brian's looking for a publisher for this thing.
Well, he did pay for it, so it's his...
Brian has made money off selling art work
That he paid for. It's like if you were to sell your Cerebus comics...
, Gerhard still gets some royalties,
For work he produced and which Dave feels Ger is entitled to...
and Carson works for Dave sometimes and on SDOAR,
Yeah, he does...
and these guys want to rip Dave off?
Uh... How? Brian commissioned Carson and Gerhard. That means he paid them money. That means that he owns the original artwork. That means if he wants to print a billion copies of his five page story he can. 

And it's a Cerebus tribute with Carson in the world of Cerebus. 

I honestly don't think Dave would have a problem with it.

I'll ask, but... how is Gerhard drawing buildings that Gerhard first created for Cerebus ripping Dave off?
That will not stand. Especially, if any of them signed Dave's petition,
Ger? probably not.

Brian? Maybe...

Carson? I think so...
which is something I think Dave has been waiting for.
I...don't think so...
Gerhard wanted out.
Yep. And he is. (more or less)
Do you think a laywer would grant in their favour?
Uh...if they paid him? Do you mean a judge?  (And if you did, yes. I don't think Dave has any copyright claim to the backgrounds Ger drew. Nor do I think Dave would try to enforce them if he did.)
If they want out, then leave Dave alone. He respects all of them. This is exactly what Dave wants.
Carson is still working on The Strange Death of Alex Raymond with Dave...
Margret Liss is my favourite of all the readers.
Yeah, she's pretty great (for a Bruins fan... I kid Mags, I kid. Call off the little Pink Mafia. CALL 'EM OFF,  CALL 'EM OFF!!!)
Like Dave said once, she has a blind spot to feminisim. She has done the best job to make Cerebus be, what Dave wants it to be.
I see her kind of as Dave's secretary.
She always obeys, never complains, and just keeps doing her job.
I would hope so, or they'd fire her.

Oh, you mean with Cerebus.

Yeah, I don't pay her, and I don't think Dave does either. 
11 years ago Margret Liss stopped talking to me after I asked her about Jesus. Afterwards, she implied I sign Dave's petition or else. I kind of admired her for her boldness.
That doesn't sound like Margaret. I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that it doesn't sound like Margaret...
I have signed it and I have done it without hands, and nailed it to Jesus' cross.
That...that sounds weird...

Margret, I would rather you were totally blind to feminism. That time when Dave asked you about me asking you about Jesus, he and I only wanted to hear your opinion on God and Jesus. I understand, like you told Dave, that is a personal subject to you, but we wanted you to know the gospel isn't kept in secret. You wouldn't have hurt Dave's feelings if you told him your beliefs were different from his. Since Dave says you have a blind spot, it's like how Jesus said of the healed blindman, "For this reason I have come into the world, that those who are blind, may receive sight, and that those who see, may become blind.," and the Pharisees asked him, "Does this mean we are blind also?," and Jesus said, "Since you say your sight remains, you are blind also."
Mags, this is addressed to you, so...
Also, 11 years ago Cerebus Yahoo newsgroup user Supentis-Po forbid me to mention the name of Jesus, and told me and others to leave him and Dave alone, and to stop misleading them with God and Jesus. I follow Jesus. Dave follows God. Everyone else may follow who they want.

That, doesn't really concern me, right?
There's a judgement and I don't want anyone to go to hell. Hell isn't a joke.
I'm fairly certain that some of the Cerebus in Hell? team would disagree. But that the people who stopped reading WOULD agree...
If one chooses Jesus who died on the cross, they will live. If one wants to know how to be saved, they can call upon the name of the Lord, repent of their sins, and they will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Yeah, I know, I collect Chick tracts... (What? Cerebus isn't my only hobby...)
I had a conversion like Dave, where I felt 5 swooshes go up out of me, while my body loosened up that had before tightened, and I felt brand new, and in a better way than Cerebus did in the tent with Jaka, I heard Jesus' Small Still Voice say, "Read my word and tell people your testimony!"
Cool? (My brother once got really drunk and "saw" Jesus, and has since become religious, and goes to church and stuff. I once got really drunk and "met" Tom Waits. I feel I got the better deal...)
As Dave had hoped with Following Cerebus, you, the CIH team, and such are Dave's future fans to help him market Cerebus and its ideas to others.
I guess... I mean, I try...
My concerns are Christ and his gospel, but my point is, that he wants all of you to lighten his work load like Margret does.
Uh, he hasn't said anything to me. 
I suggested to you, the man who runs Dave's weekly updates,
That'd be Rollie, or Fisher (I'm not really sure.)
the one who does,
George Gatsis.
and to David Birdsong that we and others all chip in and buy Dave some $69.00 computer software that has voice recognition, to listen to his voice to type out what he says, and I told all of you that the $99.00 version could have up to 6 shared accounts on it, where all of you could put things together for Dave, and even comic book word baloon text according to Dave's downloaded styles, and more, and not any of you replied back to me.
Yeah, sorry. I get a lot of messages in this gig, and sometimes I lose track. When Dave first got the hand problem, it was suggested that he get a voice typing program, and he more or less refused. He's just against computers.

Yet, some of you weekly, continue to award people to in some way to keep helping support Dave to talk about 13 year old girls,
"Award"? I HAD to talk about the 13 year old girl thing because Dave was getting raked over the coals about it. 
now to use his bad hand to draw when we all know he shouldn't, and he even told us how bad it hurt only to draw it, and more, and some of us are commenting things like, "Way to go Dave! Keep drawing and such!"
Dave's a big boy. If his hand hurts too much, he won't use it. But he has been supporting himself since he was seventeen(?) as an artist, and the loss of the ability to do the thing he... (I wanna say "loves", but that doesn't seem like the right word...) is a challenge. Also, there is Dave's competitiveness streak, which makes him wonder CAN he still draw, or is that chapter of his life gone.
Please, may you and others consider all that I have said and choose rightly.

Now, I have a suggestion, if you do not want to talk to Dave about God,
I'll talk to Dave about whatever Dave wants to talk about.
then will you please talk to him about you giving Dave and I 4 of your 12 phone conversations each year (The months with 5 of whatever day it is that you do them on.) to talk about only God and Jesus?
That's up to Dave. HE. CALLS. ME. I just tell him what's up and sorta set the agenda.
I have already asked Dave about this or have it ready in one of my forthcoming letters for him. I don't think Dave has any other spare time to give me, and 4 shows out of your 12 I think would suffice my point.
Again, Dave calls me. If he wants to NOT call me, that's his decision. If he calls you, and you wanna record it, I'll run it on AMOC.
I have likewise asked David Birdsong, if Dave and I could have every leap year issue of CIH (There is only 1 every 4 years, and the next one is Feb. 29, 2020. I mean it would only be 1 issue every 4 years.) to do an all God and Jesus issue. I have also that ready too to send to Dave. I know that all the other issues are taken until about that time, and if Feb. is taken, I asked if we could have another issue in 2020. I suggested it would be only scriptures, and all public domain art from the Smith's Bible dictionary that looks just like Gerhard and the current art in there.
That's another Dave Sim decision. It's Dave's comic, Ben Hobbs and David Birdsong help out and offer suggestions and start the Twitter Wars (oh come on guys, you know it's true!)

I suggested calling it Jesus Lamb's Story the way Jaka's and Rick's Story was titled, where like with that run in the monthly and in the phonebooks, the title Cerebus was lessened, as it would be for this issue of CIH. I suggested it end, where Jesus is arrested in the garden, and tells the soldiers, "Have I not told you, "I am he.,"? If you want me, here I am, but let these little ones go so that scriptures may be fulfilled." I suggested this could be our answer to Take On Me.
Ooookkaayyy... That seems like on "odd" response...
David said he is game, but said he doubts Dave will go far it, because it isn't CIH's subject matter.
To put it lightly...
I replied back to him that was my point because God is its point. I talked more about Jesus and haven't heard back from him yet. I have one more suggestion. Below, is my recent comment to another on Dave's newest commentary on AMOC, who asked who Dave what book Dave was quoting from and such. Seeing all of us love auctions and funny things, I offered mine, and show it to you to show you I am not against you or anyone, but willing to work you like Dave is too.

But, please take all of my main points in this email, and share them with Dave, so we may see his answers. Maybe this can be the first of 4 yearly all God and Jesus phone conversations, in the same way I asked David, if Dave agrees, to help assemble the all God and Jesus issue of CIH. You wait and see, it wouldn't be one of the issues tying with Agent of Cod, but higher up. Just the name Jesus on the cover would sell more. That is a popular name.

Will you also please help me verify if or if not Dave has or hasn't read my recent fax and later petition, because when I sent the fax on Sunday, the first 3 of 4 parts (I used Faxzero and one can only fax 3 pages at a time. I am glad for Faxzero and thank for mentioning that.) faxed OK, but the 4th part failed twice, and I waited an hour and tried again, and that time it worked. I was wondering if I did something wrong or if it was only something else. I knew he was sick and it was the Sabbath, but I know before he's said faxing anytime is OK, but it was an 11 page letter about, and Dave has said he doesn't have much time lately. On the cover pages to part 4 and the later petition, I explained to Dave that in the future, I would mail them myself, and that I wasn't against his petition, but only wanted to do as I explained earlier.
If you can find out for me and all of us, where Dave stands on such things, it will help me and them know if or if not we should contact Dave in the future. I know he will probably either have already read my letter and fax, and will later report on it on his weekly update like I suggested, or he will mail me his petition and ask me to sign it or not (I'm wondering if Margret will say this again or if everyone will ignore me, but I have much more faith that someome will answer me.). My only thought was, did he see I hadn't signed the petition, and didn't proceed to read either, or see my address further down in the cover pages, which he could use to send me his petition, which would let me know either that he didn't agree, or does he not know my thinking, but if so, I wouldn't know that, and I don't want to keep mailing him, if he doesn't want that.
I'll double check, but Dave and I talked about you last time, and I had sent this e-mail up, so I dunno...
Thanks. Here is the comment and suggestion from AMOC:
"I think the book Dave is quoting from is The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis by Hugh Norman Ross from 2001. Here is a description of it from the book itself:
""Everyone knows the Bible teaches scientific nonsense" is a commonly held misconception. When pushed for examples, many point Genesis 1-11. In this book, Dr. High Ross shows how those very chapters hold some of the strongest scientific evidence for the Bible's supernatural accuracy thus reinforcing its reliability as the authoritative Word of God. "The Genesis Question" takes up the challenge in an intelligent and scientifically accurate response."
In relation to Genesis 1 - 11, the 11th Psalm says, "If the foundations be destroyed, what shall the righteous do?," which more so points to how Jesus is the slaughtered lamb foundation of the gospel before the world began, and how his 12 disciples are the other foundations built upon that chief foundation, as the 12 foundations of New Jerusalem in Revelation, and how the 12 gates of it are the 12 sons of Jacob, how God and Jesus are its temple and throne (And, not an actual building or throne.), and how all of the other Saints are the living bricks, with Jesus as that cornerstone, that fitly holds the entire Spiritual house of God together. Your best bet or anyone's is to read the scriptures for yourself in a book of scriptures of your own and to pray about it.

If you want to be saved, call upon the name of the Lord, repent of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. My conversion was like Dave's and happened when I too was praying, when if felt like 5 swooshes also went up out of me, as like Dave said, and my stresses totally left me too and I felt brandnew, and I heard the Small Still Voice better than Cerebus did, when in the tent with Jaka, and Jesus told me, "Read my word and tell people your testimony!"
I tell you what. If you or any of the other readers, that are likewise intereted in God and Jesus like I, Dave, and others are (Al Nichols, Billy Beech, Troy and Mia, Trevor Grace, and others, are you listening?), if anyone, being the first reader who contacts Dave about the 11th Psalm foundation analogy, relates it to Jack Kirby's Asgard with its city sitting on a mountain, which to me points to Jesus as that Rock, with its rainbow bridge, which to me points to the scriptures saying a rainbow surrounds God, his throne, and New Jerusalem, because his Light reflects off the 12 multi-colored stone foundations of the apostles, which 9 of the such same stones use to belong to the other Son of Fresh Oil (Something Dave has been talking about lately.) beside Jesus (Satan), and covered him, while God's Light reflected off him, but now we get to cover God's glory with Jesus Lamb, in a better way, as Dave once said David had Abishag the virgin covered him,...
And, you can get Dave on one of his weeky updates to comment on how, all of this to him relates to how Jesus, Lazarus, and Mary sat together at the table in that fulfilled virgin way, while Martha served in that Bathsheba way, and to tie that in with Dave's recent Ezekiel commentaries about, how God said that the Levites would serve at his throne, but the Kohatite Levites, helping the others at it in that Martha way, and tie in that into the 144,000 virgins in Revelation, and tie all of this together into Dave's recent remarks, that a house made by hands can not contain God, and neither can his peoples be numbered like he promised Abraham, I will donate $20.00 to Dave to be used on groceries, if he at least promises to also use part of that money to buy one box of City Hall raisins (The kind that he gets from there every Saturday.), and shows it to us on Cerebus Live and reads off the address of the people who distributed it, and eats some on air.
Thanks again for the great comments everyone."
I...I'll leave that to you AMOC readers. (I literally got nothing guys. Well except for a Batman VS Superman joke, "Martha.")
Matt, thanks
You're welcome.
(You too Margret and Anyone Else). If you talk to Dave about these things, and he has read my letter and petition, he is going to know most of what you do, but this letter to you would help him understand my points more. Thank you. If you have any questions, likes, dislikes, or such, I would be glad to hear any of them. If so, and if you're going to discuss these things with Dave on your monthly phone conversation, can you please let me know, because I only read and comment on the Sunday AMOC commentaries by Dave, and skim through his weekly updates? Thanks. Thanks for AMOC and everything else. To those in the faith, to Jesus be the glory forever and ever, amen.
I sent it up to Dave, don't think I'll get a response from him.

Okay, it's past my bedtime.

Next Time: Sunday. Matt's day of rest...