Friday, March 4, 2011

Isaiah 7-9

The Facts (Chapter number: Verse)

7:14 - "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel."

8:3-4 - "And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. The the Lord said to me, Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz [Translation: The spoil speeds, the prey hastens]; for before the child knows how to call 'My Father' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away by the king of Assyria."

9:17 - "That is why the Lord did not have pity on their young people, or compassion on their orphans and widows; for everyone was godless and an evildoer, and every mouth spoke folly. For all this his anger has not turned away; his hand is stretched out still."

My Comments

Wow, have I mentioned lately that God is a dick? Most people will at least agree that one should not punish children or kill children during times of war or whatever. And yet God here is totally okay with leaving the children and orphans and widows to their horrid fate. Because everyone was a wrongdoer? How the hell did a child do wrong against God? How the hell can God hold a child accountable for their (or their parents') actions? Most children do not fully understand the consequences of actions simply because their brains are not fully developed (studies on which I have always found horribly interesting), so why is God angry with them? I mean, it only says "young people" so I'm not sure where the age cut off is here. Not that it makes it any less heinous if he's sparing anyone younger than 3 or anyone younger than 12. It's a complete douchebag move.

For a God who is said to love so unconditionally he sure seems to be able to hold a grudge. Actually, I've seen more evidence of grudge holding than forgiveness so far. How messed up is that?


If no one has heard of Tim Minchin, here is an introduction to his awesomeness.

You're welcome. :)

Monday: Isaiah 10-12


  1. "God is a dick" So ... the people who should rightfully be damned are the authors of the "Good Book" for writing such a piss-poor portrait of the Supreme Being?

    (I would have condensed that to the very snappy "piss-portrait", but I didn't want to step on the toes of Andres Serrano)

  2. Since I obviously don't believe in a God I obviously blame the assholes mortal men who wrote this shit.

    But since God is supposed to be the author I will continue to address him personally. Takes less time. Just consider "God" to be short hand for "asshole mortal men who took it upon themselves to write this tripe that I wouldn't even use to wipe my ass."

  3. If I were as funny as I think I am, people would laugh more. :-D

    For Bible authors, it's usually considered that either God wrote it and it is thus good, or that men wrote it but were inspired by God and it is thus good. I was going for God inspired men to write it, but he's a poor judge of talent and it ended up crap anyway. Your last note was more that men wrote it and it ended up crap.

    In any case, I believe we agree on three major points: it's crap, was written by mortal men, and God is shown to be a dick throughout. I promise to read all your future references to God as you requested, even though it made Genesis 1 a giggle-fest when I tried that just now.

  4. Can either read it as that or just imagine it's like reviewing any other fictional book and God is just a character, since you usually address characters by their name and not their author. For example, if I was talking about Harry Potter I would still say "Voldemort is an asshole" even though we all know Voldemort is not a real person. I wouldn't constantly say "The character created by J. K. Rowling, Voldemort, is an asshole." It's too wordy to use all the time and that is gotten across by just saying the character's name.

    Though I guess the trickiness comes in when God is actually considered to be real, unlike Voldemort whom most people would say is definitely not real. It is taken as read that when I speak of Voldemort I am not talking about a real person but instead a character who was created and written by a real person. The same is not always assumed when I talk about God.

    My mom was telling me a while ago that she has decided the Bible was dictated by God but because the men He picked were so dumb the Bible was written all stupid and wrong. Which is all fine and dandy, but if the Bible is all you got to go on and if it was written wrong it doesn't matter if God exists or not, it is now a book that cannot be trusted. So why be a Christian when you acknowledge that you're book is flawed? My mom and I only differ in our opinions on the Bible in that she thinks there is actually a God who tried (and failed) to get Men to write a good book; and I don't think a God exists and that Men are perfectly capable of writing crappy "holy" books without any outside help at all. If that helps kinda clear up that last bit. :) But we agree on the more major points, so this is just fluff and filler to those points.

    Again, it can be difficult to write this blog with the assumption that God is just as fictional as The Crimson King or when the majority of the planet does not follow this assumption. Just the hazards of trying to debate or critique religion, I guess. :\

    And making my blog a giggle-fest isn't automatically a horrible thing. My blog can be so angry making so giggles would be a nice change of pace. :P


Anyone posting anonymously is very likely to not have their comment published. If you do not have a Google/Blogger account you can use the Name/URL option to attach a name to your comment. And remember to try and stay on topic. :)