- 7,610
- 14,139
Kuuzo has participated in these kinds of discussions on both Comicvine and Spacebattles, he's very thorough and poised with his arguments and sourcing.Can you tell us a little about the circumstances?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Kuuzo has participated in these kinds of discussions on both Comicvine and Spacebattles, he's very thorough and poised with his arguments and sourcing.Can you tell us a little about the circumstances?
lol whatever.You can continue to try to pretend that this is not the case, there is no problem.
So you're saying due to the function of belief, even if Lucifer distinguished himself from it in the past, it doesn't matter? Well I'm not even going to continue this part of our discussion because you haven't proven the Great Darkness to be a figure of belief in the first place.This is a straw man, as the point is not that recent evidence is qualitatively more relevant than that of the past, but that the function of belief negates the point that Dan Watters could not have unified Lucifer and the Great Darkness on past distinction on both figures.
This is comics. Not the bible. Just because there's a few inspirations doesn't mean we start drawing characteristics that aren't presented in the material. And that's not even getting into how this contradicts JLD's presentation of the Great Darkness which is one of it's last appearance's and actual mentions in comics.Just because you say it doesn't make it so, but perhaps I haven't articulated the point enough, which is not that the Great Darkness has been introduced in a belief system context to be related to it, but that the Great Darkness has been introduced as a figure to fit in the story of this belief system, in particular Genesis, by being the darkness opposing God's light in the Beginning.
It is rather me who should laugh at your replies.lol whatever.
At this point, read comics, as if the criterion that figures could not be related each other based on distinctions such as their stories, then then there would not be evidence of figures metioned previouls as identified with others from different context of belief systems, but, too bad for you, there is a lot of evidence showing otherwise. Supporting that this criterion is irrelevant with regard to the function of the belief.So you're saying due to the function of belief, even if Lucifer distinguished himself from it in the past, it doesn't matter? Well I'm not even going to continue this part of our discussion because you haven't proven the Great Darkness to be a figure of belief in the first place.
Are you using words pointlessly?This is comics. Not the bible.
Quote one of my posts in which my point is that the Great Evil Beast is based on inspirations? Or rather that it is a figure introduced part of a belief system, which has been reiterated on different occasions, as already provided.Just because there's a few inspirations doesn't mean we start drawing characteristics that aren't presented in the material.
how this contradicts JLD's presentation of the Great Darkness which is one of it's last appearance's and actual mentions
Whatever helps you stroke your ego.It is rather me who should laugh at your replies.
This is irrelevant. Whether there’s evidence of belief systems or not doesn’t address my point about the seeming contradiction where Lucifer distinguishes himself from the Great Darkness.At this point, read comics, as if the criterion that figures could not be related each other based on distinctions such as their stories, then then there would not be evidence of figures metioned previouls as identified with others from different context of belief systems, but, too bad for you, there is a lot of evidence showing otherwise. Supporting that this criterion is irrelevant with regard to the function of the belief.
I wanted in material evidence. Something you don’t have.You want explicit evidence that "the Great Darkness to be a figure of belief in the first place"? Dan Watters answered you positively.
What the hell does DC publishing a 1975 comics adaption of the Bible’s have to do with what we’re talking about?Are you using words pointlessly?
Especially since I hope this does not imply what I think, considering the fact DC Comics published a comics based on the Bible.
THE BIBLE | DC
For the first time ever, DC reprints the 1975 comics adaptation of the Bible, featuring the earliest chapters of the book of Genesis, including the stories of The Garden of Eden, the Flood, and Sodom and Gomorrah! Don't miss this once in a lifetime...www.dccomics.com
Quote one of my posts in which my point is that the Great Evil Beast is based on inspirations? Or rather that it is a figure introduced part of a belief system, which has been reiterated on different occasions, as already provided.
Keep distorting my words to continue discussion
You realizing posting this adds nothing to the discussion right? That’s a 6 page thread. You’re better off quoting what comments you think addressed what points instead of just posting a giant a thread.
Typical reply.Whatever helps you stroke your ego.
Make up your mind, since your point is based only on a past distinction, already addressed.This is irrelevant.
This part is very funny in view of what you claim in the rest of your post that "I’m not distorting anything.", he says.Whether there’s evidence of belief systems or not doesn’t address my point about the seeming contradiction where Lucifer distinguishes himself from the Great Darkness.
It's more like something you deny.I wanted in material evidence. Something you don’t have.
You are the one who mentionned the bible in a sentence with no connection. So, it is rather me to ask you the relevance of this sentence.What the hell does DC publishing a 1975 comics adaption of the Bible’s have to do with what we’re talking about?
"I’m not distorting anything".I’m not distorting anything. You tried to bring up parallels between Genesis and Swamp Thing issues 49-50. Implying that there are inspirations from Genesis incorporated into the issues of Swamp Thing. Also you literally just tried to argue that the Great Darkness was introduced as a figure within a belief system. Implying that it’s attached to a certain belief system.
It is even a point? Using the same evidence provided previously, Athske is a figure in Navajo belief system and Lucifer is a figure in Judeo-Chrisitan belief system, yet, they are regarded as one figure. Thus, the Great Darkness introduced as a figure in the context of a belief system is not even an issue.Also you literally just tried to argue that the Great Darkness was introduced as a figure within a belief system. Implying that it’s attached to a certain belief system.
Then you misunderstood this thread, which provides additional evidence agaisnt objections, one in particular as written in the thread, that were not addressed in the thread linked. So the thread is relevant since, roughly speaking, my thread is the continuation in terms of evidence. And since your point is a recycling from the thread, I refer you to this one where it was addressed.You realizing posting this adds nothing to the discussion right? That’s a 6 page thread. You’re better off quoting what comments you think addressed what points instead of just posting a giant a thread.Then
Typical reply.
Make up your mind, since your point is based only on a past distinction, already addressed. It is not by dismissing this point with negative claims that they are relevant.
This part is very funny in view of what you claim in the rest of your post that "I’m not distorting anything.", he says.
The evidence brought forward is not to show that the DC Universe takes into consideration different belief systems, which is quite obvious with the existence of all these figures, but that, based on your poor understanding of the DC Universe, a figure in one belief system could not have been identified with another from a different context for the poor reason that they are dinstincs and, yet, this is not what the evidence supports.
Where? Be specific. I’m not going to assume what you’re trying to point out.It's more like something you deny.
The evidence in relation to Dan Watters has been put forward in the thread linked in my first post.
This is exactly what I said your argument was. So it’s literally impossible for me to be committing a strawman.For my part, I articulated in our disscusion the point that the Great Darkness falls into the category of figures part of beliefs sytem and, for someone asserting "I’m not distorting anything.", you keep strawmaning the point.
All I said was that it’s comics not the Bible in response to you bringing up how Genesis parallels to Swamp Thing issues 49-50You are the one who mentionned the bible in a sentence with no connection. So, it is rather me to ask you the relevance of this sentence.
Now you’re just backpedaling. You literally brought up Genesis and talked about how the Great Darkness was introduced into the story to fit the particular belief system as shown in the quote."I’m not distorting anything".
Another straw man, but we're used to it with you, since the point is not based on a so-called "parallel" between the American Gothic storyline and Genesis, in addition to being an absurd understanding of your interlocutor since the event in the "American Gothic" storyline is not even related to Genesis, but good try to have tried to distort the point by associating it to the storyline rather than on "the background" of the Great Darkness, which it himself told Etrigan, and is really the point.
It wouldn’t be an issue if you have in material evidence for the Great Darkness being attached to a belief system besides just reinterpreting a scan that mentions the Great Darkness to be an absence of the Presence’s light.It is even a point? Using the same evidence provided previously, Athske is a figure in Navajo belief system and Lucifer is a figure in Judeo-Chrisitan belief system, yet, they are regarded as one figure. Thus, the Great Darkness introduced as a figure in the context of a belief system is not even an issue.
I understand what’s the purpose of the thread. What I don’t understand is how linking me to the thread I created addresses the contradictions this would oppose on JLD which is one of the Great Darknesses final appearances.Then you misunderstood this thread, which provides additional evidence agaisnt objections, one in particular as written in the thread, that were not addressed in the thread linked. So the thread is relevant since, roughly speaking, my thread is the continuation in terms of evidence. And since your point is a recycling from the thread, I refer you to this one where it was addressed.
I think this is the best move. The same goes for any other character connected to the Great Darkness.I trust Sandman31 and also think that it seems safest to separate the Lucifer and GEB profiles into either several pages or several statistics keys due to the considerable inconsistencies between different writers.
I'll end the quotation of this first part here, since you are addressing a point that was not even put forward, but was addressing the misconception that God/the Presence is particularly a "biblical/abrahamic God", not the possibility to defeat other gods to become God.No, there's no proof that they can become God by replacing other gods from other beliefs because
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, because what follows is more interesting.Did I say that the Presence can't be a god in another belief system? Nope,
So, what was the point of addressing the importance of the name, when it wasn't even questioned? "Not just an aspect", in other words, still an aspect but the other elements other than its aspects have no real relevance in this thread, which does not mean that I am necessarily against.just that Yahweh or the other names of the Abrahamic God is not just an aspect of The Presence but is its actual name oldest names where its power is derived from.
It's even worse than I thought, this is called an introduction. The development of the argument is after an introduction, what you don't seem to know about as the conclusion of this post does not suggest that previous distinctions are no longer relevant because of mere unification.You started bringing up Dan Watters and saying he unified Lucifer to GEB. Which doesn’t address any of the past and current contradictions that makes this connection inconsistent.
Your comments show the opposite.lol my poor understanding of DC???? I’m the one who started bringing up belief systems years ago before you even came over here and made this thread. You’re not saying anything new to me. I’ve already heard this argument.
You are repeating the same thing that they were treated as two different figures.It’s not about them being distinct from one another. It’s about the fact that they were directly distinguished. If they had a some type of consistent connection this wouldn’t be happening.
The same replies answering your reclycled point on JLD.Where? Be specific. I’m not going to assume what you’re trying to point out.
I was referring to the part where you say that sentence "I’m not distorting anything" where you indeed strawmaned the point, but I should have been clearer.This is exactly what I said your argument was. So it’s literally impossible for me to be committing a strawman.
Finally you give meaning to your sentence. My point did not imply that Comics = Bible, and doesn't mean that this media can't introduce cosmogonies from religions, philopsophies, etc.All I said was that it’s comics not the Bible in response to you bringing up how Genesis parallels to Swamp Thing issues 49-50
Finally you understand your strawman.Now you’re just backpedaling.
The so-called "parallel" on Genesis was not about any chapter of the story, let alone issues 49 and 50 in which the events are not related to Genesis but to the "background" of the Great Darkness, which I provided the scan for reference.You literally brought up Genesis and talked about how the Great Darkness was introduced into the story to fit the particular belief system as shown in the quote.
You should be concerned about you who seems lost with your strawman.And now you’re saying this wasn’t your point. Make up your mind please
It is the Great Darkness claiming to be "before light" which has been asserted to be in the context of Genesis.It wouldn’t be an issue if you have in material evidence for the Great Darkness being attached to a belief system besides just reinterpreting a scan that mentions the Great Darkness to be an absence of the Presence’s light.
This is not the thread, but the disscusion you had in thread where your point about the JLD has already been addressed. So I will address objections related to this new thread.What I don’t understand is how linking me to the thread I created addresses the contradictions this would oppose on JLD which is one of the Great Darknesses final appearances.
I agree with this and am fine with if you apply such a revision soon.Anyway, I think Lucifer should have 2 keys
- Sandman/Lucifer (2000-2016) canon
I don't think this applies to this version
-Sandman/Lucifer (2018) canon
Possibly since Lucifer in this run was portrayed as a counterpart against the light of God. They're basically functions of the universe and Lucifer was stated to be unlike other angels/archangels with Lucifer even being described as the cornerstone of existence of the angels and even Michael himself(Though this Michael seems to be different from the 2000 Michael, having contradicting histories, powerlevel and whatnot)
I never said that's what the conclusion of your original post was. What I'm arguing here was simply reasons to disagree with Lucifer = Great Darkness.what you don't seem to know about as the conclusion of this post does not suggest that previous distinctions are no longer relevant because of mere unification.
How? It's clear that my understanding of how DC treats it's systems of belief is much different from yours but that doesn't make me less knowledgeable.Your comments show the opposite.
No, I said they were distinguished in the past. And "consistent connection" as in one between Lucifer and the Great Darkness.You are repeating the same thing that they were treated as two different figures.
And the following sentence is a basless claim, as what it is "the consistent connection"
This isn't specific at all. This is you throwing out snarky remarks. Once again which reply.The same replies answering your reclycled point on JLD.
Of course writers can introduce cosmogonies and philosophies to develop their own cosmologies. As long as we understand that DC is still it's own separate fictional universe and cannot be blended with the other material it took inspiration from, that's fine.Finally you give meaning to your sentence. My point did not imply that Comics = Bible, and doesn't mean that this media can't introduce cosmogonies from religions, philopsophies, etc.
What do you mean by "background of the Great Darkness." This sentence is very vague. Mind being a bit clearer?The so-called "parallel" on Genesis was not about any chapter of the story, let alone issues 49 and 50 in which the events are not related to Genesis but to the "background" of the Great Darkness, which I provided the scan for reference.
What do you mean by it's "been asserted in the context of Genesis?"which has been asserted to be in the context of Genesis.
Which point? I had many. And how was it addressed?This is not the thread, but the disscusion you had in thread where your point about the JLD has already been addressed. So I will address objections related to this new thread.
Yeah, sure, I'll see if I can make a draft tomorrow just want to debate all the points being brought against it since I'm planning on leaving the site again (not sure for how long) once all the threads that I'm involved in is done.@Sandman31
Look, as I have repeatedly said, your suggestion to create separate statistics keys or profile pages has already been accepted. You can apply it whenever you wish, but I would appreciate if you do so as quickly as possible.
As adressed above, God/the Presence is not part of a particular belief, so the point that the Titan brothers tried to usurp particulary Yahweh means just, by taking into account that that God/the Presence is indentified in the context of different belief systems , that it was more advantageous, for them, to usurp Yahweh than another one on the hierarchical level.
This does not contradict that God/the Presence can't be God in another context of belief system. God/the Presence as Yahweh is one his aspects in the context of this belief system is not an evidence.
No, there's no proof that they can become God by replacing other gods from other beliefs because, I repeat this this again, there is an order created by the Gods and in that order Yahweh, the God of the Testament, is the God of Creation. There's nothing indicating that they could have chosen Zeus or some other God to usurp to become the God of Creation because the title of God of Creation is something that is exclusive to the God of the Testament. If its something that not just Yahweh can have then why do they need to name themselves Elohim? Why not just go back in time and be their own God? That's because that empty role is for Yahweh/God of the Testament. That's why they need to precisely measure the space Yahweh's absence left, because it is something exclusive to Yahweh.
"Because Yahweh will renounce his throne, and leave his Creation to disintegrate behind him"
Also, the fact that The Jin En Moks and Silk Man, beings older than even the Presence/Yahweh (The Silk Man wasnt shaped by God's hand and came from a different version of Creation) himself calls him Yahweh is another indication that Yahweh is his "real" and oldest name.
Did I say that the Presence can't be a god in another belief system? Nope, just that Yahweh or the other names of the Abrahamic God is not just an aspect of The Presence but is its actual name oldest names where its power is derived from. The Hebrew God is where the power of the Presence's lie. Names are power. This has been shown multiple times like how everything in Creation is branded in Yahweh's name because it is the Divine Name.
This was shown in The Yahweh Dance when Elaine was training to be the God of her universe.
Aside from being worshipped as Elaine, she was also known and appeared as the Wolf God Aroone.
But despite that, we know that Elaine's "true" and oldest name is Elaine Belloc. She may be known as Aroone in another religion but the power doesn't come from Aroone, the power comes from Elaine because thats her real name beyond all those other names. It's the "Divine Name" in Elaines Creation.
That's the same as The Presence, the Presence might have other names but his name in the Judea-Christian mythologies are his oldest "true names"
Its the divine name that is engraved in everything in Creation which is what solidifies Yahweh as the God of Creation
The divine name (Read as Yahweh in Hebrew) written on Perdissa
First of the fallen is not luciferSilkman and the Jin En Mok are not older than the Presence, lol.
They can’t even be older than Lucifer, as he was created in the void where there is no time, let alone the Presence.
Of course the Jin En Mok existed before there was a god to curse the demons, the Presence wasn't God before creation was made, what whould he be the god of?
And even inferior, less important beings than the Presence, like Michael, have different aspects and names. Note: Michael is not just known by Kali, he is Kali.
The Presence definitly have different aspects, and Yahweh is one of them, but also is Allah and the others, and I don't think there is such a thing as the main or true one, it's just that titans knew him by that aspect like most of the SoTG do, there are no aspects that are illusionary and others that are true. I don't think there's an evidence to that.
They're all true, all the Presence.
To compare Elaine, who’s only a half angel, and at the point of making her cosmos, an archangel, to the supreme being that is beyond comprehension, isn't really a good way to make an example.
The Presence describes himself as infinite and eternal like the void, which at least should mean they have the same attributes.
So, I think the dreams have shaped the Presence, which is only an aspect of the supreme being that he uses to interact with his creation, like the voice.
Also, Destiny of The Endless, the oldest of the Endless, exists only as a side effect of the supreme being. So, it wouldn't make sense for a younger brother like Dream to have given the supreme being his power. I think it just gave him an aspect.
Anyway, I think the GEB thing is just a retcon, just like the FoTF being Lucifer. They were both distinguished as a different characters
This comic ignored several comics that came before it to become it's own thing.
Lucifer called himself the First of the Fallen in the 2018 runFirst of the fallen is not lucifer
They're fodder because theyre depowered. Their true forms were stated to be Void Gods larger than Creations that are unbound by Space/ Time. It was also stated that Cestis regaining her true form would destroy all of Creation as a side effect.@Sandman31 the jin enk moks are fodder
When was it stated that way? Plus lucifer one shot silk man anywayThey're fodder because theyre depowered. Their true forms were stated to be Void Gods larger than Creations that are unbound by Space/ Time.
I don't remember that happeningIt was also stated that Cestis regaining her true form would destroy all of Creation as a side effect.
That's just him saying that he was the first angel to fall from heaven, he's not saying that he is the first of the fallen.Lucifer called himself the First of the Fallen in the 2018 run
The text seems very vauge, like is she saying that her going to the void will destroy creation as a side effect or something else entirely?
"Its been too long. She wants to get naked. The end of Creation is just a side effect. But its a pretty funky one all things considered
Don't really care, he is maybe more powerful than them anyway.The Silk Man is not a Jin En Moks.
Her being "naked" will destroy Creation.The text seems very vauge, like is she saying that her going to the void will destroy creation as a side effect or something else entirely?
Ehh, I still have lucifer above themHer being "naked" will destroy Creation.
I'm saying that the supreme being, the one that the Presence is an aspect of, is originally neutral like the void, beyond definitions, and without personality. Dreams, Lucifer, creation and all that are what gave him definition, made him God, the Presence, Yahweh, Allah and all these aspects which he used to interact with them. That's also proven by the last chapter of Lucifer 2018, where the Presence loses his form and becomes neutral after Lucifer was erased. Because Lucifer is one of the things that defines that supreme being.Are you saying that once Creation gets destroyed then the Presence is no longer a God? That doesn't even make sense. The Presence is a god because of his power, the Presence isn't a king whos title solely relies on his domain, the Presence is called a God because he has the power of a God.
And so what if Lucifer was created in the Void? The Jin En moks were literally described to be God's who floats in the Void before being stucked in Creation. Also, Lucifer wasnt created in the Void, he was created in the darkness before Creation which is not quite the same as the Void.
I'm not saying the Presence doesn't have aspects, read again. Just that Yahweh is his real name. You don't have to use headcanon when we perfectly know why the Titans chose to usurp Yahweh and place themselves in the Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic mythology, its because it has been explicitly stated that the God of Creation is Yahweh and that the Divine Name which means his oldest name, is what holds Creation together and that name is Yahweh. Now that Yahweh is gone they took another of name of Yahweh which refers to him in plural form so that they can place themselves as God of Creation. If they chose to usurp other gods then they won't become the God of Creation because it is Yahweh that is missing so they can only use names like Elohim which is just the Hebrew way of calling yahweh in plural form.
Just like how Elaine's divine name is Elaine Belloc despite her being known as both Aroone the Wolf God and Elaine in her Creation.
Doesn't matter if Elaine is only an archangel, the way the verse operates doesn't change. He is arguing about the belief system and the power of beliefs, also look at the OP, this is mostly about Lucifer, the Presence just got dragged into it because he isn't talking about a specific singular entity but about the system in which the Presence is a part of.
The Presence said he is eternal and infinite but was also shaped by external forces. That doesnt mean he's the Void, hell the reason why he escaped to the Void was because its the place where he's not all powerful and is the only place where he can experience randomness
The FoTF is not Lucifer