A Christmas miracle of interfaith unity, and how it proves that the Pope and the Prophet Abraham both suck

On Friday, Pope Benedict said “In some countries, the Catholic Church has already joined forces with Jews, Muslims and members of other religions….”

Yes, the three great Abrhamic religions finally got back together for a common purpose!

To what? To end hunger? To end prejudice? To end war, pestilence, or honey boo boo videos?

No, to end gay marriage. (source)

So sayeth the first Pope who also happened to be a member of the Nazi party, although he was just a kid then.

On this Christmas, I hope that the spirit of the holiday really does get into you.

I have it.

I’m sitting here, trying to like my enemies a little more, trying to feel affection for those I might otherwise be indifferent about, drinking booze and dodging DUI checkpoints. Getting in touch with my inner child by enjoying the joy of my actual children.

This rocks.

So if I can offer you one Christmas message it would be this: Have fun, and be nice.

But, if you’re one of these “WAR ON CHRISTMAS” assholes, and you find yourself giving any credence to any belief system that traces its way back to the “prophet” Abraham, please free your mind. Think about where these silly cults came from. It might help you understand why the first time all three of them finally set aside their differences and got together, it was so that there would be less joy under track lighting and tasteful throw pillows in formerly run-down neighborhoods.

Y’see, this guy, Abram had an imaginary friend, who has lots of names — sorta like Puff Daddy. Abram called him God, or Yaweh, or Jehova, or Bernie. Lets go with “God.”

Abram is walking around in the desert, most likely tripping balls on mushrooms or something, and he starts making deals with God. Instead of signing a contract, they seal a deal with Abram cutting off a piece of his dick. Because nothing says “I assent to this contract” like cutting off a piece of your dick. If you didn’t know that, you’re an idiot — because that is basic desert nomad contract law.

So after they sign this deal, Abram then becomes AbraCADABRA!

No, just kidding, he becomes AbraHAM, because nothing says “I cut off a piece of my dick because I love my imaginary friend” like adding “Ham” to your name.

This is the reason that Jews and Muslims don’t eat ham, and it is why Americans traditionally eat ham on Christmas. It is also why we call hamsters “hamsters.” Before this, they were called Honey Boo Boo rats.

Ok, so after that, Abraham bangs his wife’s slave, Hagar (after whom Sammy Hagar was named, and who looked exactly like him). Abraham’s wife was cool with this. I don’t think they were swingers, but it had something to do with the fact that his wife couldn’t conceive. There is no evidence that Abram or Abraham tried to get his wife to do a three way with the slave. Amateur.

He should have asked the angel if he did anal instead.

He should have asked the angel if he did anal instead.

By the way, Abraham and his wife considered adoption before this, but Abraham was all weird about that for some stupid reason. So, he bangs the slave, and knocks her right up because she was Mexican, and you know how those people are. Then she gives birth to a son, Ishmael, but Abraham was kind of an asshole, so he took the position that this particular son just wasn’t the same as if he got one from his wife. I think he had second thoughts about introducing him around as his son, when he was all swarthy and Mexican-y looking. So, even though she was infertile, Abraham just kept on banging his wife, and her slave, until one day, POP goes the wife’s uterus, and Abraham’s wife got knocked up with a good ol’ full-blooded Jewish kid. She has a baby, and they named him Isaac.

Later, his wife got all weird about Hagar screwing Abraham. This was really uncool because she SAID it was ok. Women!

So, she made Abraham throw them out. He did it because he was a pussy. I mean seriously, he cuts off a piece of his dick for an imaginary friend. Can you imagine what a shrieking harpy of a wife could make him do?

Then, Abraham’s imaginary friend, you know the one he cut off a piece of his dick for, says “Abraham, kill Isaac for me, mkay?

And, as if cutting off a piece of his dick for his imaginary friend wasn’t batshit crazy enough, he then says “ok imaginary friend! I’ll kill Isaac!”

But then his imaginary friend says “SIKE! kill a goat instead.”

They had a pretty good laugh about that.

But, it showed God that Abraham was totally his bitch. Can you imagine if you had a friend, and you told him “hey, dare you to cut off a piece of your dick!” and then he DID it? Ok, that would sorta be like something you would see on Jackass, so it might be hilarious.

But, if your friend said “dare you to cut off a piece of your dick,” and you really wanted to mind-fuck him, you’d look at him and say “I AM DOING THIS BECAUSE I LOVE YOU!!!!!” Yeah, that would be pretty “single white female.” But, imagine if you did it, and said that, but you didn’t do it to mind-fuck your bro, you just did it because you really were sorta gay for him, and you were so weird that you believed that he’d be like “yeah, you Van Gogh that pecker for me, bitch!

Now tick it up a notch, and imagine its all about killing your son…

I wouldn’t even punch my son for my best friend in the whole world, let alone kill him for her.

The inescapable conclusion is that Abram / Abraham was a real piece-o-work. And it ran in the family. His nephew offered to let a crowd gang rape his daughters, because the crowd wanted to ass-fuck some angels. Who the hell wouldn’t want to? Seriously, if an immortal winged being came into my town, first thing I’d ask is “Really? Do you think they do anal?

And for some asinine reason, Christians, Jews, and Muslims look to this guy as their common spiritual ancestor.

And now, a few thousand years later, they all come together, at the apparent direction of a former member of the Hitler Youth, who now runs the biggest man-boy love society the world has ever known. They come together for the purpose of telling people that they should not join together in love for one another.

Because THAT would be fucked up.

abraham tells god to fuck off

Addendum: The point of this all is (since some commenters seem to have missed it), if you want to celebrate Christmas, or be an Abrhamic follower, go ahead. But, pretty much all you have to learn from any religion can be gleaned from Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure: Be excellent to each other. No organized Abrhamic cult has ever gotten us closer to that ideal. Throw away the text. Turn your back on the organization. Be excellent to each other.

45 Responses to A Christmas miracle of interfaith unity, and how it proves that the Pope and the Prophet Abraham both suck

  1. jikamens says:


    Let me throw a clue at you, on the off chance that you’re inclined to catch one…

    The Pope doesn’t speak for all Jews. Or for all Muslims. Or even for all Christians.

    Brutally insulting all Jews, Muslims and Christians because you disagree with the words of one intolerant Catholic is mind-numbingly stupid and bigoted.

    I hope you have the self-respect to regret having posted this when you wake up sober tomorrow morning, but knowing what a self-important narcissist you are, that seems unlikely.

    Either way, I won’t be around to see it, because I’ve removed your blog from my RSS feed and removed from my blog the posting I made in your support in March 2012.

    Ho, ho, ho.

    • blueollie says:

      Insulting them how: by reporting what the Bible actually says?

      Sorry, but this horrific nonsense is in the Bible and to pretend otherwise is to be dishonest.

    • You’re entitled to your opinion, but I’m curious how it is “bigoted”.

      • Stephen says:

        Because while you weren’t looking, the definition of “bigot” was changed to “someone that disagrees with my worldview”.

      • Zack says:

        Because it’s deliberately exaggerated, and ignores most of the context of the stories. The post is a load of garbage even if you look at it as a satirical literary analysis of a work of fiction, because even satire acknowledges the points in favor of the argument, if only to mock them. Call it what you like, but this lacks any validity as analysis, any humor or bite as satire, and accuracy as a portrayal of events. The only discernable role it fills is a man’s emotional outpouring who’s looking for an echo chamber to confirm for him he’s right, and to make him feel better about what he feels is a bad situation. It certainly will win no friends, nor persuade anyone that you’re right. It very well may have the opposite effect.

        Perhaps bigoted is the wrong word, admittedly, but (for me, at least), it’s like this:

        I am a devout christian who believes homosexuality is wrong, but supports gay marriage for constitutional reasons… and with me holding that opinion, this post is kinda like having a member of the KKK agree with you in a debate. If someone that hate-riddled, inaccurate, and angry is going to agree with you, it makes you reconsider if you’re on the right side of the debate or not.

        • If you believe in this stuff, tell me this: How do you know that God himself didn’t inspire me to write this — because THIS is EXACTLY how it all happened?

      • I’ve “deliberately exaggerated” fairy tales?

        • Zack says:

          Yeah. Even if it is a fairy tale, the tale has a context that you left out. Every story- true, false, legend, or history- has a setting. Take out the context, for example, of the opening of the hobbit, and it becomes a story about an old man stalking a midget: “http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20121221”.
          Take out the context of the Civil War, and Sherman becomes a monstrous freak who just liked burning down buildings and killing civilians.
          Take out the context of the racial composition of america, and the election of Obama becomes meaningless.
          Take out the context of Apartheid, and South Africa becomes a story of how black people have abused white people.
          Take out the context of the girl being poor out of the Matchstick Girl, and the story loses all meaning.
          Take out the context that rabbits are supposed to be fast and turtles are supposed to be slow, and Aesop’s fable of the tortise and the hare becomes just a race.

          Every story has context- and even if you believe it’s a fictional story, the context is still important. Even fairy tales have a meaning, even if it is only to convey a by-now cliche moral message. By exaggerating- by removing context- you remove whatever meaning they had, along with whatever persuasiveness or depth your own argument might have had. By retaining the context inside a satire or attack on something, even if only to reject it, the satire or attack becomes that much more powerful. Swift’s ‘A Modest Proposal’, the stereotypical and classical example of a vicious satire, includes such rejections.

          I appreciate humor based on my faith; because, from an outside perspective, parts of it do appear ridiculous. I am, for the same reason, tolerant of attacks on it; it doesn’t affect my beliefs. I would only ask that, if possible, you try to at least make your criticism persuasive; so much the better if you can use it to expose and communicate to people one of the many genuine problems with modern religion.

          I’ll be honest: I admire athiests in a lot of ways. Generally speaking, they’re willing to confront a lot of problems that nobody else is, and face up to uncomfortable truths other people spend their whole lives denying. To me, athiesm at its best is essentially Speaker for the Dead: hiding no flaws, and pretending no virtues. So I dislike it when they essentially do the same thing that religious people are often guilty of by trying to play moral guardian when they mock religion and imply that athiesm is inherently superior to religion and should therefore be enshrined in law, rather than acknowledging that crappy athiests do exist, just like crappy religious people exist, and promoting more speech as the best cure rather than censorship.

        • So you’d prefer if I sit down and explain why essentially every facet of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity is an absurd farce?

          Thats a bit more of a project than I want to bite off in one blog post. That’s why I went to the key point where all three find commonality.

          • Zack says:

            No- but within this particular story, there’s one critical piece of context that you missed. In this case, that’s the context that Abram believes- whether you do or not- that his ‘imaginary friend’ is the creator of both him and the universe, and that his imaginary friend promised him lots of awesome stuff, which recolors his actions from completely insane from any perspective, into being, at worst, a rational if fatally misguided choice.

            After all, if you met an omnipotent being, that claimed he created you and held complete control over your life, and he basically promised to give you the world as long as you went along with him, and you believed him, it would make sense to go along with pretty much whatever he wanted you to do, if he’s really that strong.

            You can mock the belief in the imaginary friend- I’m fine with that. You can mock the idea that the imaginary friend created something- I’m fine with that. You can mock the idea that the imaginary friend has power and promised him free stuff. I’m fine with that.

            But lacking that critical piece of context in there- that he thought his imaginary friend was supremely strong and promised him free stuff- completely destroys the lesson about faith the story is trying to teach, from the perspective of it as a fairy tale, from the perspective of it as a religious text, and from the perspective of trying to criticize it. In most stories, the context that the imaginary friend is strong and promised free stuff is less relevant, but here it’s central to the theme of faith presented.

            • tgt says:

              You seem to be claiming that faith is a positive, and without noting that the actions were done based on faith, we lost the story. I see that the story pointed out that the faith was batshit insane.

          • So you’re saying it makes sense because he would get free stuff?

            Seems like yet more flimsy stuff to build thousands of years of superstition upon.

            And, you know, if you do open up the context, you see more absurdity, not less. What kind of an omnipotent being has such poor self esteem that he needs to make deals with mortals, let alone deals about genital mutilation and infanticide?

            The God of the Abrahamic cults has serious psychological issues.

            • Justin T. says:

              I’m curious to know in what context cutting off a piece of one’s dick and attempting to murder your own child would be acceptable. Perhaps Rev. Zack can enlighten us.

        • So take the context out of actual historical events, and it might change the story. But, say that Jack chopped down a magic cherry tree instead of a magic beanstalk, and I’ve committed a travesty?

  2. dan says:

    this should be interesting …

  3. jdgalt says:

    I hope the Pope gets a copy of this in his inbox.

    Because his anti-gay message would be taken more seriously if he would begin by telling his priests they can no longer keep it a secret when one of their own number confesses that he abused a child.

    I mean, who do they think they are — police officers?

    • Zack says:

      Note: not a catholic here, so pardon my ignorance if it rears its head.

      Catching criminals isn’t their job. As far as I know, they’re not obligated to report any other crimes that are confessed to them… why would one crime in particular get special treatment? I can’t think of any case where a private citizen is forced to report a crime or be a criminal themselves… so forcing priests to do it for one special case would really be the definition of descrimination, wouldn’t it? (Again- limited knowledge base here, I could be wrong.)

      I can definitely see, maybe, the pope saying that the person hearing the confession must force the abuser himself to resign and report it to the police as a condition of absolution. Unless I’m mistaken, that would be kosher with catholic religious law, and it would accomplish the same end goal.

      • alpharia says:

        ” 18 U.S.C. § 4 : Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. ”

        Sadly this requires active concealment rather than failure to report (as it used to in Common law countries) since there is really an ethical obligation on any citizen to report crimes that are abhorrent to that civilisation. And to tell the truth a priest who knowingly conceals a crime of this type should be outed and sent to task by the community he states he is there to advice/councel/protect/guide. Hypocrisy they name is organised religion.

      • Justin T. says:

        Legally obligated? Probably not. Morally obligated? Shit, if a member of the clergy isn’t obligated to report it when someone they know is raping children, in what universe is that moral code valid as a model for society? I hope none.

  4. alpharia says:

    Well done Marc, had me laughing and groaning and nodding at the idiocy that are these Abrahamic religions (with there many many offshoots) .

    Though your first part was the best truth, Christmas is about Family and children. They make us young again and make us remember why we put up with the day to day insanities the rest of the year. Have a good one mate, hug the kids, laugh with the the wife, eat lots and drink in moderation [well if your a monk that is otherwise drink to forget ;) ] and keep smiling – pisses the idjits off like nothing else!

  5. robert says:

    Good one Marc! keep on keepin’ on….

  6. Wheeze The People™ says:

    Remember the epic Christmas movie, “It’s a Wonderful Life”, starring James Stewart as George Bailey?? Long story short, ol’ George, in dire financial straits, is just about to off himself on Christmas Eve. Why?? To commit insurance fraud – that’s why!! Well, a Guardian Angel named Clarence intervenes to show George what life in the town would have been like if George never existed. And that alternate reality was pretty bleak, really, cuz George was generally a good man who did good things for other (if you can get passed his attempt to commit criminal insurance fraud!!) . . .

    Well the version I’m gonna reveal here is a bit of a remake; it’s still called “It’s a Wonderful Life (Redux)”, now starring Abram as Abraham and Adolf Hitler as Abraham’s Guardian Devil, Beelzebub. In this version, Abraham is depressed because he got really stoned and mutilated his one-eyed monster — he lost a good three inches from his manly meat stick, but, more importantly, he totally he perforated his urethra and his vas deferens in the process, leaving his tool a day late and a dollar short as well as leaking every which way possible, like an ol’, crumbling dike . . .

    Depressed, Abraham has the devil Beelzebub kill him – he suffers death by the devil’s boomba!! . . .

    Butt, because of Abraham’s early exit, everything is different – Judaism is stillborn; gone before it ever got started . . . And Christ, although he existed, didn’t have to deal with the money changers in the temple and all the other nonsense at the time he allegedly railed against and, so, he waited to appear in – get this – the 1960s, in the form of a guitarist named Eric Clapton. All true, even the graffiti art at the time proclaimed, “Clapton is G-d” . . .

    Better still, there were no deadly Christian Crusades, Medieval Inquisitions, or constant and violent Muslim-Christian-Jewish wars; Mohammad was just another dude who had a fetish for the youngin’s. The Jews?? They weren’t cohesive and identifiable as such and, thus, there was no “Final Solution” genocide to be executed by Adolf Hitler. The World Trade Centers are still standing tall, because, apparently, only crazy-assed Muslims could take those buildings down, and such Muslims ever existed – they never did – because of Abraham ‘s early demise, there are NO Muslims. NO Christians. NO Jews. EVER. Period. None of those cults ever got off the deck and the world was better for it, wouldn’t you agree?? . . .

    Submitted for your consideration . . .

    • Exactly.

      Of course, it might be likely that those idiots running around the desert would have come up with something equally shitty… but, while I’m no fan of organized religion, I haven’t seen any of the non-Abrahamic belief systems causing the trouble that Abraham and his progeny caused.

      And when we consider the story I’ve mocked, that might not be much of a surprise.

  7. Ancel De Lambert says:

    That link on DUI is terrifying.

  8. LTMG says:

    Dear Mr. Randazza,

    In addition to entertaining some like-minded people and entertaining yourself reading the comments, what purpose did you have in mind publishing this post?

    Best regards,


  9. Ryntur says:

    Marc I was always taught that this story was a warning The end point is God sent an angel to stop the sacrifice. Moral “Sometimes when we humans feel that god is commanding us to do something it is in fact our own faulty human senses tricking us, If it can happen to abrham it can happen to you so… Be careful, and always remember what the prophet Hosea said” advice which Pope Pedobear XVI evidentially didn’t learn in Sunday school. But then again the Catholic Church collaborated with the Third Riech so we shouldn’t be surprised. That said way to completely miss the point and make an ass out of yourself In the words of my mother a former youth lay minister Please go fuck a duck

    • Ok, not a bad point about the story of Abraham and Isaac. But, I always learned that the moral of that story was “you do what the magic space man tells you to do” no matter what. That Abraham so loved god that he was willing to kill his own son for him. And then god hooked Abraham up, and let him kill a goat instead — which sucks if you’re the goat, I guess.

      So, I don’t know which sect of the cult you learned from, but the cult I was in as a kid taught us that it was a story about blind obedience.

      • Ryntur says:


        It’s not the denomination that actually matters really
        The Church is not the building, the church is not the steeple, the church is not a resting place the church is the people… and in my case my mother had to lead a coup against a pastor, who was thought to be a pedophile, from what i gather they never had any hard evidence… But they had enough for the bishops to send him to Alaska or somewhere equally remote and undesirable. and later they found some bullshit excuse to defrock him. Anyway after that incident obedience was deemphasized in favor of discernment, not that it was emphasized that strongly prior to Rev Evil McSneveil anyway , and then when i was appointed to church consul, ~5yrs at the same meeting where i took the oath, we went into secret session over something which i am still not allowed to talk about even though it’s been 9 years lets just say it resulted in a felony conviction for a former officer of the church

        • tgt says:

          So, you’re going to claim it occurred, but refuse to provide any details that was the lessen, but refuse to provide any information that could be checked out. Tom Johnson, meet ryntur.

          • Ryntur says:

            first of all i said suspected of being not that he was, if he isn’t or thats a false statement of fact against a private citizen who is possibly dead now, (first result on google is a report of someone by that name dying in a home invasion) i do not want some bullshit defamation suit from Rev Evil McSneaval’s estate or worse he himself and I always speak anonymously on matters of religion for personal reasons the only person who has my contact info, is marc and he only got that because WP has most mail anonimizers blacklisted. I trust that he won’t revel if you do not like how operate in this regard i invite you to snort my taint. Third I was responding to the
            > So, I don’t know which sect of the cult you learned from, but the
            > cult I was in as a kid taught us that it was a story about blind
            > obedience.
            by telling how my experiences and the wider experience of the church of which i was a part shaped the interpretation of the passage at issue. Regardless of weather you believe me or not it doesn’t change the fact that i was taught, that the blind obedience interpretation was fatally flawed in light of Hosea 6:1-6, et al, and that accordingly the abraham and Issac narrative must be understood as a metaphor of some sort rather then a historical event. Furthermore that interpretation is invalid because it breaks the number one rule of scriptural interpretation which is and my pastor wrote this in 24pt capital bold underline letters so just imagine that as you read

            There is alot of fine print, but particularly applicable to this story is the fact that the writings of the Prophets have more authority then any other part of the old testament and the new testament has greater authority still

            • tgt says:

              I wasn’t talking about the suspected pedophilia. That was a random tangent you went on. “What sect were you in?” Followed by “This one time, at bandcamp…” in the middle of your answer.

              I was responding directly to what you claim you were responding to. Your response to that suggests that you learned the obedience lesson well. When something doesn’t make sense, there must be some context where it does make sense. Rationalize until you find it. Your pastor’s authority says so!

            • Ryntur says:

              It wasn’t a tangent i gave an indirect answer part of the whole anon thing if you really want to find out i gave a big clue but if you do not or are just reading casually you won’t know, and yes A Pastor did teach me a version of the rules of scriptural interpretation but there are thousands of those, but no pastor directly taught me that interpretation only affirming that it was one of the possible correct ones according to the rules, and further telling me that the blind obedience one violates rule #1. The point of teaching those rules is so that the individual may come to his/her own conclusions about faith, and to give him/her the tools needed to challenge the clergy when they fall into error. Now I ask you what cult quite intentionally, and systematicaly gives its members the tools they need to launch a coup against it’s own leadership, What cult appoints 15 year olds to counsels so that they might gain experience in case that teenager is one day elected to a leadership position in it? What cult has elections in the first place.

            • tgt says:

              And more rationalization. For instance, blind obedience does not violate rule 1 in any way.

              Rule 1 is also incredibly stupid. If you need the totality of scripture to understand any of scripture, then the old testament couldn’t make sense until the new testament. What kind of God would write out commandments that his people couldn’t understand for thousands of years? Are we even done with scripture? Jesus is supposed to come back, so there’s more scripture to be written. Until we have all scripture, according to your rule 1, we can’t understand any of it.

              Also, I saw your clue, which undermines your whole not telling what cult you were part of. Yes, it’s still a cult. If you’re indoctrinating youth, it’s a cult, and I don’t see these rules for challenging clergy that you claim exist. Rule 1 is the only one you’ve mentioned, and it doesn’t do that.

              As for elections, raising up lower level peons to lord over the other peons is not at all in conflict with a cult.

              How to tell if you’re in a cult:

              Are you asked to believe things on faith? If yes, then you’re in a cult.

            • Are you asked to believe things on faith? If yes, then you’re in a cult.


          • Ryntur says:


            At what point did i say God wrote the scriptures, that is litteralism, me != literalism. In fact the literalism approach is a heresy which some nut jobs in the 1900s came up with as a response to the mainstream church’s “failure to condemn” Darwin’s theory of Evolution. And has led to much harm, The Scriptures were written by Humans, they may have been responding to revelation when they wrote, but the scriptures have all the flaws that typically come with any man made document. Further we do not have the original copies, only copies of copies made centuries after the fact, Also the scriptures that most people have are translations of ancient greek/hebrew manuscripts and those languges are particularly problematic as there are certain words which can have seven different meanings at once, so most translations have idealogical bias. So Literalism really falls on its face as a doctrine, and given the arrogance of its originators that is not surprising, and perhaps i didn’t state rule #1 as accurately as i could have but observe how i used it the blind obedience interpretation is foreclosed by among other Hosea 6:1-6, 1 Peter 14:15, Luke 9:52-56, and I could go on, In fact I’d go so far as to say any church that taught blind obedience would meet the definition of cult as real scientists who study that sort of thing have put out. But it is clear that Marc grew up in one and tgt you are atheist fundamentalist, and you will not take what i say how it is meant, and this discussion is only destined to go down hill from here. To Marc let me say I am sorry that 60% of the people who call themselves Christian are complete asshats, who do not understand that the religion they claim in fact condemns their bigotry, Just know that there is a 40% still, and we’ve been fighting to reclaim Christianity for Christ going on a century or more now. and as a 1st amendment superhero, I would hope you will save us when we get into trouble despite your animus To tgt Good Luck destroying what 10,000 years of human history has erected if Christianity wasn’t here we’d all be worshiping Isis so i don’t think you’ll succeed
            Best Wishes

            • tgt says:

              You should learn your history. Literalism dominated christian theology until recently.

              If you deny that the bible is the word of God, then you can’t quote scripture to back up God’s ideas. Any passage could be errant due to the influence of man. The bible becomes a worthless mishmash of God and man, and no way to tell which is which. This is the root of your 60/40 split. Different people take different parts of the self contradictory bible as true. There is no one proper way to read it. Lumping the believers into two groups is also inappropriate. There are nearly as many different sets of beliefs as there are believers. Take any given bible study of a half dozen people, and it’s unlikely that any 2 of them will agree on everything.

              The comment about me being an “atheist fundamentalist” is beyond stupid. Atheism isn’t a theology.

              Your closing is also awesomely bad. It’s in the “not even wrong” category. Christianity hasn’t been around for 10,000 years. The Roman’s were the ones that spread christianity. Without christianity, the spread would likely have been of the Roman gods, not the Egyptian gods like Isis. The only think I’m fighting against is false belief. By your own count, more than half your believers also have it wrong, so you’re pretty much in the same boat I am. Not to mention all the non-christian faiths. As the saying goes, we all reject thousands of gods, atheists just reject one more.

    • tgt says:

      Except that in the story, Abraham isn’t misinterpreting God. God told him to kill his son, and then God told him not to. Abraham didn’t defy God or think about God’s commands and nothing bad happened.

      Here’s a story for you. A guy planned to smoke crack because his friends wanted him to. He didn’t like the idea, but all his friends pushed it, so he went about finding a place and time to do it. His friends wanted him to, so he would. When the time came, his friends showed up with weed instead of heroin, so he smoked weed.

      Does that show that peer pressure should be resisted, or that your friends won’t ever make you do real bad stuff, so just go along with what they say?

      • MKC says:

        Except that in the post, it’s fucking hilarious satire. Marc wrote a piece of satire, and then people came here and didn’t get it. Marc wasn’t being a douchebag or anything bad.

        He was just being irreverent. See the words at the very top of your webpage.

      • MKC says:

        And I just realized your post wasn’t a reply to Marc, but to Rytner–my bad. (The spacing/layout confused me.)

  10. Davey says:

    I believe you may have inadvertently stumbled upon the true origin of the phrase “going ham.” Nicely done.

  11. Rogier says:

    Had me laughing out loud. Zack’s pained argument about the “lack of context” is silly. “But,” Zack protests, “the imaginary friend was … [drum roll] … GOD! The Creator! You didn’t mention that!” No numbnuts, Marc doesn’t have to. Everyone — everyone — knows who the imaginary friend in the story is. It changes nothing about the innate ridiculousness and the complete moral bankruptcy of the imaginary friend commanding Abraham to kill his son, and Abraham getting ready to unquestioningly do just that. I’ll bet that the Abraham-and-Isaac Bible story all by itself is responsible for causing millions of former Christians to begin questioning and ultimately abandoning their faith. Huzzah for ol’ Abe.

    This post was pretty damn close to perfect. The only thing that could have made it better was embedding this video from the great Brit comic duo Mitchell and Webb: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT0Df4s8tUw

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: