PeterDavid.net

I had found that B.C. just wasn't very funny anymore. I guess that goes hand-in-hand with Hart recycling so much of his art. So many of the strips have been comprised of the "Advice" strip, the "You Know" strip, the "Miss Know-It-All" strip, etc. I'll just have to content myself with those old paperbacks. I'd sure like to see that animated Thanksgiving special again, though.

I never found the Christian-themed strips objectionable . . . they just weren't funny. The older BC strips (from before he went evangelical) were great, and I have always loved Wizard of Id...

I have to agree that his post-conversion strips just weren't as funny as his earlier work. I didn't find them offensive, although I know many people who did.

Unfortunately, I'd say that's true for about 90% of the comic strips out there: They're just not as funny as they used to be.

That said, my sincere sympathies to the Hart family and I hope he's gone on to a better place.

Here's a question, though: Does anyone remember when his "Miss Know-it-all" advice strips used to be called "Dear Fat Broad"? Was there a reason he changed? Was that part of his conversion to evangelicalism or did a feminist group come after him for it?

For me, the strip shown here was a bit much:

http://wondermark.com/tcsd/stripdoc_3.html

That being said, I didn't read BC very often by I recall Wizard of Id being pretty good.

I agree that a cartoonist has every right to draw what he pleases. But newspapers still have a choice of what strips to carry. As a Jew, I had no problem with the pro-Christian strips he drew, it was the (albeit rarer) anti- strips that bothered me, like the one linked to above, and the one PAD referenced in his post.

I have no problem with the Mallard Fillmore strip, though. I don't mind political humor that attacks my political beliefs, but I do mind religous humor that attacks my religious beliefs. I consider the two brands of humor different.

The Fat Broad character was still present when I was reading the strips daily, so it wasn't part of his conversion to stop. Someone must have convinced him to change her name.

I did find the occasional strip of his funny, but more often The Wizard of Id than BC. I do offer my sympathy to his family.

He never dropped the character from the strip, he just stopped referring to her as "Fat Broad". I was just wondering what the reason for the change was.

"Considering Judaism has survived five thousand years of assorted nations trying to destroy its practitioners, I certainly think we could survive a couple of Sunday comic strips."

I'm sorry to nitpick, but Judaism has not existed for five thouosand years. I'd give it 'only' about three thousand five hundred, and that's probably an overestimate.

I don't think people should say five thousand. It makes it sound as if we (Jews) are needlessly exagerating. Three thousand is still very nice. Five thousand seven hunderd sixty seven is the Jewish year counted since the calculated creation of the world.

Yeah, well, you are probably a lot more secure than the average person, PAD. For an awful lot of people, any suggestion of opinion different from their own, even if it comes from a frikkin comic strip, is too threatening to allow. Sad, really.

There isn't a single strip I follow now in the daily paper. The amount of time spent for the amount of chuckles induced has reached too unfavoable a ratio to make the effort worthwhile.

All that said, my condolences to Mr. Hart's friends and family.

BTW, a very nice obit can be found here: http://www.stargazettenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070409/NEWS01/704090328

You are so right, Bill. Lately it seems like there's an entire industry out there of people who do nothing but look for things that offend them. And the recent "chocolate Jesus" controversy shows that such nonsense goes on both sides of the religious divide.

I can remember watching one of the old animated shows they did- he went out doing what he loved to do.

it was a "stroke" of genius.
::dodges fruit and various missiles::

sorry, had to do it.

"You are so right, Bill. Lately it seems like there's an entire industry out there of people who do nothing but look for things that offend them."

Claimng to be indignant, ofended or victimized or persecuted has become for some a way to gain power over others.

Good strip, sad loss.

Yeah, lots of people are saying that the strip wasn't always as funny as it used to be. Not many long running strips are. It's got to be some kind of grind to try and do that many daily strips with that many jokes for that long and keep it seemingly fresh for the long time readers. Even long running political strips only seem fresh because the target is new and they're basing their strips on what's in the news now. But they still boil down to the oft used dumb politician joke, the crooked politician joke, the pandering politician joke or the Bush is a joke joke.

For the style and content of his strips, I think Johnny Hart did pretty ok.

I've seen estimates for 'Abraham' at 2000 BCE, which would make Judaism 4000 years old. Jerusalem recently celebrated it's 3000th birthday (dating to 'King David'). If we're dating from 'Moses' 3500 is probably close enough. The Earth of course is only 5767 years old or so. ;-)

If the cartoon linked to above by Bill was meant as it has been interpreted, I really can't see anyway not to consider it offensive. It's saying an entire religion stinks like an outhouse. There's really no good way in my mind to roll that as overreacting. It's hate speech. And while legal (as all hate speech is and should be) if I were a newspaper editor, I would not run a cartoonist who stooped to such speech.

Most of Hart's religous strips though weren't that offensive. It's only a handful that can be picked out that were. The rest I reacted to in the same way as I react to the political Mallard Fillmore strip: it's not my cup of tea, next?

I remember reading and enjoying the paperbacks when i was a kid, also the nifty little thanksgiving cartoon. Always a good chuckle. I think Grog was my favorite. And altho in real life i'm pretty phobic about snakes I always felt sympathy for that one Fat Broad was whalloping all the time.

As an atheist I still found some of the "anti-jew" stuff a bit uncalled for at times and I leave it to you to weigh the value of the non-religious about religious persecution.

I haven't read the "funnies" in years. But from the time I learned to read at the tender age of four all the way through my college years, reading the funnies was an integral part of my morning routine and for that matter, my life. I watched many strips come and go, but B.C. and Wizard of ID were always there like the sunrise and the sunset.

Now Johnny Hart is gone.

I grieve for him, and my thoughts and prayers go out to his family. And selfishly, I grieve for my own little loss. B.C. and Wizard of ID were part of a "pantheon" of comic strips that were an essential part of my life for nearly two decades.

Johnny Hart: you are missed.

I'm not sure about the "outhouse" strip. The first time I saw it, I didn't pick up on the supposed symbolism. To me, it just came across as an unfunny joke about the stating the obvious or not being able to take responsibility for your own failings. It wasn't funny, but then, not much of his later work was, IMHO.

Hart had denied that it was his intent was to say "Islam stinks." As the article linked above noted, a crescent moon is a fairly common thing to see on an outhouse door. Obviously, only Hart knew what his true intent was, but this was just ambiguous enough for me to give him the benefit of the doubt. It's a far cry from the Danish cartoons that were very explicit in being offensive towards Islam.

But even if Hart was intending to say "something in Islam stinks", then I would still fight for his right to be offensive.

I would like to give Hart the benefit of the doubt too. I was a little surprised to see the strip, and can see where it may have been innocent.

But there's a difference between "the right to be offensive" and "the right to be offensive without facing consequences."

The KKK has a right to meet peacably, and to print their views. But I wouldn't want my local paper to print their views for them.

Similarly, I wouldn't want my local paper to print cartoons of a hateful nature. I'd want the cartoonist to go searching for a publisher who supports hate speech.

Newspaper editorial staffs have a right, and a responsibility, to be selective in the material they publish. When they publish hateful material they are doing the community a disservice.

The first amendment **only** applies to the government. Not to newspapers. Not to magazines. Not to publishing houses.

I think people are reading what they want to into the above-linked strip. I don't think he meant anything--it could just as well have been B.C. and others sitting in a sauna, and someone says "Is it me, or is it HOT in here?" When I first read that strip, the joke to me was B.C.(?) stating the obvious!

But there's a difference between "the right to be offensive" and "the right to be offensive without facing consequences."

True, but I think a lot of the supposed consquences these days, like receiving death threats for drawing a comic strip are really over the top.

Posted by: John at April 9, 2007 04:19 PM
I would like to give Hart the benefit of the doubt too. I was a little surprised to see the strip, and can see where it may have been innocent.

But there's a difference between "the right to be offensive" and "the right to be offensive without facing consequences."

Yeah, rightly or wrongly when somebody says something like that (or perhaps in this case appears to say something like that) I find it tougher to get the same enjoyment from their work as I did before.

Take the whole Mel Gibson fiasco. Whatever he says, he certainly has a right to say and it certainly won't affect the quality of the Lethal Weapon films. Before his DUI arrest, I enjoyed watchign them. Now, I cannot watch those movies without being reminded of that incident, and that detracts from my enjoyment of them. I look at Gibson on the screen and I don't see the character of Martin Riggs, I see Gibson, and instead of enjoying the movie I find myself thinking "what an asshole," instead.

I don't feel strongly enough to join in a big campaign to get somebody fired or an organized boycott or anything like that, but I'll certainly look at their work differently. If I were a Republican, hawkish Dixie Chicks fan when Natalie Maines said she was ashamed the President was from her home state in 2003, I wouldn't have been so outraged that I would've thrown a temper tantrum in front of a news camera or protested outside a concert with a big crowd or thrown the albums I'd previously bought under a bulldozer, and I certainly wouldn't have sent hate mail...I would've just stopped being a fan, stopped listening to the music.

The brilliant, funny and quirky cartoonist Johnny Hart died in 1977. What was born-again in his place was a mediocre, often polemical cartoonist who was maybe worth a chuckle every couple of weeks.

Peter started off by remembering one of Hart's gags that stayed with him for years.

I'll share one as well.

Years ago, Hart introduced a new character to the strip by the name of Curls.

BC (or Peter, or Thor, or whoever) - Who are you?

Curls - I'm Curls, master of satiric humor.

BC - Then, say something funny.

Curls - I'm pleased to meet you.

>>>>>

Who knows why this stuff stays with us?

--Ed

Not that I know anything about the subject, but when Micha said:

"I don't think people should say five thousand. It makes it sound as if we (Jews) are needlessly exagerating. Three thousand is still very nice. Five thousand seven hunderd sixty seven is the Jewish year counted since the calculated creation of the world."

all I could think of was Monty Python.

"The number is 4327 and 4327 shall be the number."

Bill Myers said:

"I haven't read the "funnies" in years."
-----
Must...resist...cheap...joke.

:)

I don't think people should say five thousand. It makes it sound as if we (Jews) are needlessly exagerating. Three thousand is still very nice. Five thousand seven hunderd sixty seven is the Jewish year counted since the calculated creation of the world.

Calculate how? The publishing history of Journey Into Mystery? ("Whosoever clips this foreskin, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of... monotheism.")

Posted by: Alan Coil at April 9, 2007 08:39 PM

Must...resist...cheap...joke.

Huh. I must be tired or something, because for the life of me I can't figure out what that cheap joke is.

This is going to keep me awake all night. Thanks a LOT, Alan.

I just have to ask--for all those who consider the linked-to strip hate speech, had you seen it just in your paper would you have made the (in my view at least) incredibly tenuous link to Islam? The strip's at night, there's not much ROOM in a strip, and BC's going to an outhouse. Now, a funny little moon has been on just about every depiction, drawn or otherwise, of any outhouse I've ever seen. So, with limited space, if you're not going to use a big neon sign that flashes "OUThouse, outHOUSE", ya wanna imply outhouse, ya draw a little wooden shed with a moon on the door.

Now, me, personally, I never have any problem with religion coming into the funnies. Some of my favorite Peanuts strips are wear Linus is reading some theological book or another and commenting on what's going on.

I'm sorry for his family's loss.

Must...resist...cheap...joke.

Huh. I must be tired or something, because for the life of me I can't figure out what that cheap joke is.

Just a guess--was it "That's all right, BC hasn't been funny in years"? (That's the first cheap joke that I thought of, anyway.)

Posted by: John at April 9, 2007 04:19 PM

The first amendment **only** applies to the government. Not to newspapers. Not to magazines. Not to publishing houses.

If you're trying to say that the First Amendment only restricts the power of the government to censor, you are correct. So, yeah, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, T.V. networks, etc. aren't obligated to convey any and all types of content. They've a right to be selective.

What I believe you're missing, however, is the fact that the selfsame First Amendment protects the right of the media to convey messages that some may find offensive. So in that sense, the First Amendment does indeed apply to private-sector organizations.

Given just how trendy it is these days to claim the mantle of the wounded party, if media outlets cave in every time there is public pressure to censor this or that they won't be able to disseminate ANY content. Because frankly there's just about nothing you can say today that won't offend some noisy segment looking for some excuse to get some airtime.

Now, me, personally, I never have any problem with religion coming into the funnies. Some of my favorite Peanuts strips are wear Linus is reading some theological book or another and commenting on what's going on.

The difference between Hart and Schulz is that while Schulz' worldview was informed by religion, he didn't feel that it was his place to impose his religious views through his comic strip; he also didn't feel that his views were The Truth with no room for questioning. (He did go through a phase of street preaching after he came back from WWII, but was ashamed of it later.) Hart, well... (I think it's partially the difference between someone who spent a lot of time thinking and studying and someone who doesn't seem to have moved much past the inital fervor of the convert into something deeper.)

(There were some collections of single-panel cartoons Schulz did featuring teen characters that had a distinctly church-related theme and are worth checking out. The only one I own is titled "What Was Bugging Ol' Pharaoh?", but I think there were a couple of others; it looks like they're available used pretty cheaply.)

I'm reminded of an old Philip Jose Farmer story, entitled "Riders of the Purple Wage". It featured a far-future youth gang, the Young Radicals, in a society with so much free time, the citizens soaked up massive amounts of education and culture completely by accident. One small vignette in the story has a sociologist musing about possible meanings in the names and actions of the Young Radicals. Among his musings, he hits on the fact that one slang term for a hick in this society is "rude-ickle", which he then likens to a radicle, or radish, before riffing on the possible interpretations of "reddish". At one point, he even refers to the group as the "Young Radishes".

Basically, what I'm saying here is that if you're willing to stretch every possible point in order to come up with the interpretation you want, there's nothing any rational person can do to stop you. If you want to read Islamic symbolism into an outhouse door, feel free. Personally, I think the whole idea is full of the same thing an outhouse is...

I just have to ask--for all those who consider the linked-to strip hate speech, had you seen it just in your paper would you have made the (in my view at least) incredibly tenuous link to Islam?

You've engaged in elusive ridicule directed at other posters here. Are you asking your question because you are finding it incredulous Hart's strip was elusive ridicule of Islam?

And no, I would have simply assumed Hart released the strip because he was hateful enough to accept money for a strip no one would find funny. The people who took offense from it gave him more credit than that.

Posted by: Mike at April 9, 2007 08:53 PM
I don't think people should say five thousand. It makes it sound as if we (Jews) are needlessly exagerating. Three thousand is still very nice. Five thousand seven hunderd sixty seven is the Jewish year counted since the calculated creation of the world.
Calculate how? The publishing history of Journey Into Mystery? ("Whosoever clips this foreskin, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of... monotheism.")"

I have no idea how and when the Jewish Rabbis came up with the Jewish calender we use today. All I know is that this year is Jewish year 5767, and that this number refers to the creation of the world as described in the bible. As a secular Jew I don't believe this date is correct in any way, and, with the exception of holidays, I mostly use the Christian calendar for everyday purposes. The Jewish calender is used in parallel with the Christian one by most Israelis -- each day is marked by both dates.

I also have know idea how archeologists assess the times of events and individuals described in the bible. But their assessment does not add up to 5000 years of Jewish existence even if you go back to Moses or even earlier, which takes us back to mythological time. Who knows what the religion that became Judaism was like back then?

-----------
About the cartton that is supposedly offensive toward Islam. I don't know if I would have thought of it as refering to Islam if the idea has not been suggested to me before reading it. I don't think I would have thought in that direction on my own. It seems like a very oblique way to make a joke about Muslims. It's simpler to assume that it is a mediocre joke about outhouses.

All I know is that this year is Jewish year 5767...

The New Year was the millennial opportunity for stunt-flying shows with five 767s.

>BC - Then, say something funny.
>Curls - I'm pleased to meet you.

Oh, yes. I remember that one. I've got it in a 'landscape format' paperback dating back about fourty years. Given how many people are quite thrilled to retire after 35 years, it's interesting to note how many cartoonists - an inherently demanding job given the creativity required - keep at it well past that.

As for Hart, hadn't seen any of his even remotely recent work as the local papers haven't carried either ID or BC in quite a few years.

You know, B.C. was one of the first strips I read as a child, and I still make time to read it every time I have the comics open. I like to refer to it as "the news" sometimes, because, well, there were times it was all I could stand to read.

But, that being said, with "B.C.", Johnny Hart was one of my first experiences with storytelling, and I never even considered the possibility of it being propaganda, because in all my years of reading him, I never bothered to research it.

Never really wanted to, anyway.

I will miss him and his comics ,honestly the funny pages for me any more are just not fun at all.No more Boondocks, and Family circus gives me diabetes with its sugary ,"cute " kiddie stuff.
What happened to the days I looked forward to the comics pages?
Good bye Mr Hart you will be missed.:(

You know what? I've seen some of the BC strips that were accused of being offensive to various religions and actually been able to see something of what the accuser was talking about. I don't see a thing here. I looked at the strip before I read the article and I got a joke about life in general. There's the outhouse with its crescent moon on the door. Behind it, the curtain of night acting as a door around the world is adorned with the same crescent moon.

"Is it just me, or does it stink in here?"

Life stinks. A frustrated observation at the end of the day. It's an old punchline that's been used as far back as the pre-radio vaudeville days to modern films and satire. Not overly original, but everybody likes to use it. I took it as an attempt to do that punchline without actually spelling it out.

Is my interpretation right? I don't know. I do know that I found the writing in that article about as one sided and agenda driven as an Ann Coulter diatribe though. Every quote, statement and idea is interpreted and spun to show it in the worst possible light. There are several BC strips I've seen where that much work to make it look offensive wouldn't have been needed. With this one, it just looks stupid in the attempt.

I'd love to see the strips from the week or so before that one and the week or so after it. Was there a running gag in there that might shed some light on this one or was it a stand alone strip?

Peter: What's that you're eating?

BC: An orange

(Peter obviously feels as if he's being put on)

BC: What's that you've got?

Peter: A bunch of purples

And, of course:

BC: Life is a $2.50 Paperback
formerly
BC: Life is a $1.75 Paperback
formerly
BC: Life is a $1.50 Paperback
formerly
BC: Life is a $1.25 Paperback
formerly
BC: Life is a 95¢ Paperback
formerly
BC: Life is a 75¢ Paperback
formerly...

Reading that supposed anti-Islam strip and the break down of it I was waiting for a punchline somewhere, anywhere.

"Posted by: Mike at April 9, 2007 11:21 PM
All I know is that this year is Jewish year 5767...
The New Year was the millennial opportunity for stunt-flying shows with five 767s."

It doesn't work. Judaism uses letters to mark numbers, not digits. The year is HTShS"G.

Sorry HTShS"Z

I'm also inclined to think that the outhouse strip wasn't aimed at Islam, for the reason that if it is it's way more subtle than Hart's message strips tended to be. (On the other hand, I can certainly understand the desire to read something more into it than is actually there, because the joke itself is pretty weak.)

I think remembering not to fall asleep in his oatmeal is higher on Hart's list of things to do than being subversive:

Talk about a lapse. We did the same [Wizard of Id] gag within a two-month period. And nobody caught it! Well, see, it wasn’t like we wrote out the gag and then did it and forgot to throw it away, and then did it again—it wasn’t that at all. We rethought it up again, you know, and sent it to Brant [Parker] and Brant did it both times! ... Because it was a short span of time, it was almost word for word.

But I think he drew up the above strip not thinking that there was anything wrong with it. After all, Muslim terrorists attacked our country a few years ago! Clearly, any resonable person must agree that something stinks in Islam, right? We're a solid, Christian nation, and my readers know that Islam is bad....

'This comic was in no way intended to be a message against Islam -- subliminal or otherwise,' he said.'It would be contradictory to my own faith as a Christian to insult other people's beliefs. If you should have any further silly notions about malicious intent from this quarter, you can save yourself a phone call.'

Notice the subtle way he wove the mention of his Christianity in there? Isn't it enough that it be against one's ethics to insult other people's beliefs? Mentioning Christianity certainly doesn't clarify the issue -- it muddles it, given fundamentalist Christianity's uneven track record in respecting Islam.

I do know that I found the writing in that article about as one sided and agenda driven as an Ann Coulter diatribe though.

The undiatribe-like nature of the article belies the comparison to Ann Coulter.

"All I know is that this year is Jewish year 5767, and that this number refers to the creation of the world as described in the bible."

Okay. Well, that being the case, man was created on the sixth day. So I suppose it depends how many years passed between creation and the birth of Abraham, the first Hebrew (or, if you prefer, when Moses first accepted the covenant.)

PAD

(On the other hand, I can certainly understand the desire to read something more into it than is actually there, because the joke itself is pretty weak.)

Yeah, that's why I suspected there was more to it than just a bad smell. Also, as the article says, why make it nighttime when that's so much more trouble for the artist?

I don't know if I'd have interpreted that strip this way if the alleged meaning hadn't been spelled out. I think I would have, because when I saw it for the first time I thought "wow, that really does look like it says 'Islam'" but I don't know.

Since there's nothing more to go on than suspicion I suppose it's best to let it drop and for me to try and give him the benefit of the doubt.

I have many of the B.C. paperbacks from the sixties and seventies, and I really do think the strip was funnier then. Thor's inventions, B.C.'s forays as the Midnight Skulker, Wiley's phobias...all pretty good stuff.

I didn't read the strip for a long time, ten years or more, because it wasn't in the paper we subscribed to. When I started reading a paper that carried it, probably in the mid-'80s, I thought the then-less-frequent evangelical strips were an odd choice. What I thought was an odder creative choice was his decision to name the women (who are never called by name in any of the paperbacks I have) "Cute Chick" and "Fat Broad." In retrospect, I wonder if that wasn't a deliberate poke at people who might find those terms offensive. After all, all the male characters have regular names, including the turtle and the pig (OK, "Oynque" isn't exactly "John," but still...), but the two female characters are given generic descriptions.

Myself, I'll be interesting in seeing if Hart's death affects the strip's circulation. My local paper dropped "Andy Capp," "Shoe," snf "Apartment 3-G" not long after the death of their creators. We still have "Dennis the Menace" going, but it's handled by the crew Ketcham had been farming the work out to for some time. Similarly, I doubt if "Garfield" or anything connected to Mort Walker will go away very soon after Walker or Jim Davis pass on.

"Posted by: Peter David at April 10, 2007 10:12 AM
"All I know is that this year is Jewish year 5767, and that this number refers to the creation of the world as described in the bible."

Okay. Well, that being the case, man was created on the sixth day. So I suppose it depends how many years passed between creation and the birth of Abraham, the first Hebrew (or, if you prefer, when Moses first accepted the covenant.)"

I don't know exactly at what year, according to the ancient rabbis' calculations, Abraham and Moses appeared. I think what they did is count the geneologies from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to Jacob, and then 400 years to Moses. After that, I don't know. But of course these are the religious calculations of people interpretng a text refering to mythical times. Modern historians have their own calculations and considerations. And they have Moses somewhere around 2200 BC, I think. We also have to ask ourselves if there really were a Moses and Abraham, or are they mythical figures that were created to explain the existence of Judaism. We have to ask ourselves how Judaism was developed in the real world, ho it was shaped, when were it's traditions invented, and so forth? I don't think the answeres will amount to 5000 years, but even without this number the antiquity and survivability of Judaism speak for themselves.

corrections: 1200 BC.

>I suppose it depends how many years passed between creation and the birth of Abraham, the first Hebrew (or, if you prefer, when Moses first accepted the covenant.)

It might be more complicated than that if you buy into Gerald Schroeder(PhD Physics)'s theory that one way to account for the discrepancy between the Bible and scientific measurement of the age of the universe is if time flowed at a different rate early in the universe's existence. Given some cosmologists' belief that the universe may have had a burst of ultra-fast expansion (light speed if not faster) very early on, relativity could have screwed time up royally. I don't pretend to have the math to figure out whether it's so much flotsam, but it is fun to think about.

"man was created on the sixth day"

I always wondered--if god is GOD, why did he need 6 days to create everything? Couldn't he/she/it do everything at once?

And why did he need to rest on the 7th day? He's god--he's supposedly the be all-end all of everything. Why would he NEED to rest after creating 'stuff'?

Sorry. But I believe in Thor, Odin, etc. about as much as god, jesus, etc.

"man was created on the sixth day"

It gets even more confusing depending on the Bible you own. I've seen more then a few versions that reference the creation of man twice in the first six days on two different days. It's just that they only go into the "Adam and Eve" details on the sixth day creations.

"And why did he need to rest on the 7th day?"

Come on... He'd just become a new dad. That'll wear anybody out.

"It might be more complicated than that if you buy into Gerald Schroeder(PhD Physics)'s theory that one way to account for the discrepancy between the Bible and scientific measurement of the age of the universe is if time flowed at a different rate early in the universe's existence."

Religious natural scientists sometimes seek to reconcile the religious story and science by finding proof or explaining the biblical stories. However secular people prefer to think that the bible is not science but the mythology of one ancient nation -- even if one apparently more enduring and perhaps more powerful in some way.

"And why did he need to rest on the 7th day? He's god--he's supposedly the be all-end all of everything. Why would he NEED to rest after creating 'stuff'?"

If you do not read the bible as truth, but as a mythical historical text, the answer to this question lies in understanding the intentions of the people who wrote it. Part of the answer is that there was a time when the bible was the story of a young people surrounded by much more ancient cultures, and the story of genesis is a response to the Sumerian or Babylon mythology.

However, I'm sure that between them Jewish Rabbies and Christian theologians have come up with detailed religious answers to this question. Whether these explanations are satisfying, I do not know.

"It gets even more confusing depending on the Bible you own. I've seen more then a few versions that reference the creation of man twice in the first six days on two different days. It's just that they only go into the "Adam and Eve" details on the sixth day creations."

I don't know how it is in the Christian bible. But the hebrew bible has two genesis story, the seven day story and the Adam and Eve story. I learned that these two stories are from two different sources. The Adam and Eve story is the more ancient legend identified as source J for Jehova, while the more schematic seven day story is the result of a later source called P, for priests, who wrote it in competition to other mythologies.

However, you should take what I say with some caution, a research further if you want to know about it. What I know is the result of what I learned in high school. I'm not an expert.

I was just watching a show about biblical research, and the experts talked about the Jewish people forming around the beginning of the first millenium BC. So only 3000 years. How embarassing.

Hmmmm....

I still think it was the new dad thing. His children weren't the greatest things to come along since sliced bread.

Adam was dumb as a brick and would do whatever Eve told him to do and Eve kept hanging out with the wrong crowd and disobeying God every chance she got. A girl like that... No wonder he has so many grey hairs in all those old portraits of him you see in church.

Creating a world is hard, very hard, the guy deserves some downtime.

>Creating a world is hard, very hard, the guy deserves some downtime.

The red tape is mind-boggling. Just the environmental impact forms alone ...

I also found the early B.C. to be funny -- Thor inventing the steering wheel, or power brakes, leaps to mind -- but the proselytizing strips just killed the funny for me.

His 1999 interview w. the Washington Post didn't help matters any...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A99035-1999Apr4

He says:

Jews and Muslims who don't accept Jesus will burn in Hell.

Homosexuality is the handiwork of Satan.

America was founded as a Christian nation, and should remain one. The country's moral decline began the day that prayer in the public schools was outlawed.

Angels travel at the speed of thought. Some are the lackeys and stooges of the Devil, and they whisper temptations in our ears.

God probably engineered the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin as punishment for trying to give away holy land in violation of biblical commands.

The end of the world is approaching, maybe by the year 2010.

And:

Johnny Hart is going straight to Heaven.