Robert Ariail by Robert Ariail

Robert Ariail

Comments (23) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. braindead08

    braindead08 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    It’s okay if a Republican does it.

  2. mikefive

    mikefive said, over 1 year ago

    Is this like the Menendez thing?

  3. leaman100

    leaman100 said, over 1 year ago

    Jesus was not around when Stephen was stoned. He quoted that line when a woman caught in the act of adultery was brought to him. But, I do understand the joke. Catholics believe Mary was without sin for those of you who don’t understand.

  4. Clark  Kent

    Clark Kent said, over 1 year ago

    Mary, Mary, quite contrary,
    how does your garden (of gethsemany) grow?
    With fruits and vegetables for the last supper.
    Earlier in the day they had the last brunch, they all had Denver omelets with hash browns and decaf coffee.

  5. Nos Nevets

    Nos Nevets said, over 1 year ago

    Greg Crosby wrote an excellent article about media complicity in ignoring Liberal, but hyperventilating over bad behavior, depending on whether they share political views with the object of their reporting / non-reporting.

  6. Rockngolfer

    Rockngolfer said, over 1 year ago

    I hope Stephen Colbert’s sister wins.
    Elizabeth Colbert-Busch

  7. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 1 year ago

    It should be “let him who is without sin cast the first stone”. If you take out the relative clause the grammar becomes clear: “Let him…cast the first stone.” You wouldn’t say “Let he cast the first stone.”

  8. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, over 1 year ago

    There is a book out called “Misquoting Jesus”. I forget the name of its author. I saw a number of interviews with him as he was on his plug-my-book tour of TV shows. He was a born-again christian who was so enthusiastic about his faith that he decided to find the oldest known versions of the bible to be able to read them and know for himself what they said. He even learned ancient Greek so that he could read them himself, rather than rely on a translation from someone else.

    He found that many things that we take for granted in the bible were not in those older copies. Many of these parables were hand-written into margins obviously later than the manuscripts were originally written. One of those had to do with casting the first stone.

    So, although the story is a really good one, it was not recorded in the earliest versions of the bible. Did it really happen? Does it matter? We report; you decide.

  9. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 1 year ago

    @DrCanuck

    Let him who is without grammatical error make the first correction.

  10. californicated1

    californicated1 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @I Play One On TV

    One of the constant failings of any translation of anything is that the translation is done with the viewpoint, education and exprience of the translator and that what they translate basically re-makes the original work in their own image—sort of like Salvador Dali giving his rendition of what Michelangelo’s David would look like if Dali did it.

    Translations should always be looked on more as a “work of art” because not every translation is going to sound right, either to the person reading the translation or the person who reads, thinks, speaks and understands in the original language that the original work was created or published.

    And one of the constant failings in translation and even transliteration has always been The Bible, along with any other religious text out there, because they have been out there for so long and all that time has given several people, or in some cases even several hundreds or several thousands of people, the opportunity to translate the work and re-cast it in their own image and paradigm, thinking that this translation is better than the previous ones, but as the passage of time has shown, languages and even idioms change to the point that what may have been translated back in the days when King James commissioned the undertaking does not mean quite the same nowadays, but yet there are still people out there who cling to the translation as the fundamental and final word, faithlessly and even without question, because the translation, no matter how faulty and flawed these days, was that person’s foundation for their faith and an underpinning for how they live the rest of their lives, to put it in existential terms and if that translation is flawed—like the mistranslation of “the sea of reeds” to “the Reed Sea” and later on “the Red Sea”—can lead to other questions about what they believe in and why they believe it, which may be something that the believer may not be quite ready to face.

  11. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, over 1 year ago

    @californicated1

    A good example is to look at the paintings of Moses done by Michaelangelo. His bible was written in Aramaic, and there are two translations for the appearance of Moses after he received the 10 Commandments. One is that he had a glow. The other is that he had horns. Guess which one Michaelangelo read…..

  12. californicated1

    californicated1 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    But once again, even Michelangelo, going back to the source texts of all the translations, still is operating from a flawed perspective and interpretation, especially since he was trying to interpret an event that happened 2000 years in his past, and 2500 years ago in ours.

    One of the failings of every interpretation out there of any work, doesn’t matter if it’s The Bible or even Im Westin Nichts Neues by Erich Maria Remarque is that all interpretations are written with the paradigms and perspectives of the interpreter, much like the original work was composed with the paradigms and perspectives of their author.

    And unfortunately, it may not even matter what the interpreter translated or wrote, especially when the original work’s author is not around to answer questions about what they actually meant when they wrote their original.

    It may be great and wonderful that Michelangelo was able to read Aramaic, but then again, how was he actually interpreting it?

    Because one of the failings of any interpreter out there is their own limitations.

    For one limitation, did Michelangelo think in Italian?

    Because that would also affect any translation or interpretation he made in expressing his depiction of Moses in his artwork.

    One of the other limitations out there will always be that we as people are the products of the times that we live in and that we tend to see everything around us, and even everything that happened in the past, through our own paradigm and that this was no different in the times those Aramaic folks wrote their texts or from the Renaissance times in which Michelangelo was flourishing, creating his artwork and reading his Aramaic texts.

    What this means for us out there is that there is no interpretation or translation out there that is going to hold the original meaning (and interpretation) of the writer who penned the original work in their original language using their paradigm.

    And one constantly wonders why the Historian Herodotus was also known as “the father of lies”.

    And that Leopold von Ranke’s version of Historiography capturing events as “wie es eigentlich gewesen ist” will always be a challenge because historians, much like the history they write about, will always be written and interpreted first with their paradigm, and then re-written and re-translated later on with somebody else’s and that this applies to all work created when you get right down to it, even The Bible as well as Il Principe, by Niccolo Machiavelli or even Die Zauberberg, by Thomas Mann.

  13. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 1 year ago

    @DrCanuck

    It’s not that we know the truth, but there are reasonable grounds for saying that Jesus had siblings.

  14. fritzoid

    fritzoid GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    “A translation can be beautiful or it can be accurate, but it cannot be both.” — Vladimir Nabokov


    By the way, I heard the punchline to the Mary-throws-the-stone joke as “Mom! I told you not to bother me when I’m working!”

  15. ARodney

    ARodney said, over 1 year ago

    Right. That’s why congressman Weiner is still in congress. Sheesh. The blind leading the blind…

  16. Load the rest of the comments (8).