Genesis 48: The Younger Brother Gets the Greater Blessing

Today's Episode

Jacob Blesses Ephraim and Manasseh (v. 1-22)

Jacob was ill so Joseph brought his two sons to see him. Jacob was very happy as he never thought he would see his son Joseph again, and how he even gets to meet 2 grandchildren that he didn't know existed.

This is a nice scene, it would truly be a great thing to find out your son (who you thought was dead) had children of his own.

Jacob blesses his grandchildren, but he gives the better blessing to the younger one. Joseph protests as that should go to the firstborn, but Jacob insists that the younger will be greater than the older. He also says that he is giving some land to Joseph instead of to his brothers.

My memory is spotty on this, but if wikipedia is to be believed, Joseph is almost the last son. It is pretty silly of Joseph to complain so much that the younger son is going to get special treatment when he got a ton of special treatment. Perhaps that is the whole point here.

Jacob vs Israel

I loved this movie 15 years ago

This whole thing with Jacob's name being changed has been bothering me for a while. God changed his name from Jacob to Israel in chapter 32, then again in chapter 35. In chapter 46 I pointed out that it was strange that the narrator called him Israel but God called him Jacob. And now in this chapter this narrator flops back and forth within one verse. v2

And it was told to Jacob, "Your son Joseph has come to you." Then Israel summoned his strength and sat up in bed.

I honestly don't know what to make of this, but it is certainly weird. Perhaps it is as simple as poor translating. One thought I had was that it is a merging of two different stories. Maybe there were stories about Israel and other stories about Jacob which had similar components and they eventually got melded together into one story. Perhaps they were trying to appeal to two different groups of people so they couldn't simply transfer everything to one name or the other. Obviously these are just guesses, but something has got to be up here.

Do Atheists Overuse Silly Examples?

When arguing with Theists we often have to argue about burden of proof. We will ask for them to prove that God exists and they will respond that we should prove that he doesn't. Of course, proving a negative is impossible but explaining the difference between "prove he exists" and "prove he doesn't exists" can be difficult. One way to demonstrate this is to ask the theist to prove that another God (say Thor) doesn't exist. It's impossible, but they might say that there is no good reason to think he exists, at which point you can say the same thing about Yahweh.

Instead of using Thor, some atheists prefer to use an example that is obviously made up and no one has ever actually believed in it. The universe was created by a flying spaghetti monster. There's nobody who does or ever has actually believed in it, but it demonstrates the same point, there is no way to prove its wrong. It can also be kind of fun, people can edit famous art and such to include the FSM. It can become somewhat of an atheist rallying cry I guess, a bit goofy perhaps, but it's all in good fun.

wikipedia

There are also several other concepts used to show that proving that some things don't exist is impossible, Russel's teapot, the invisible pink unicorn, and the dragon in my garage. I like all of these things and think they provide a good example for the burden of proof. You shouldn't believe there is an incorporeal dragon in my garage who breaths fire that won't burn you unless I give you an actual reason to believe it exists. Given the properties I have claimed it has, there is no way to prove it doesn't exist, but of course I have also given no reason to think it is real. Additionally, the invisible pink unicorn is claimed to have contradictory properties, how can it be invisible and pink?

pic source

As far as I can see it, there are two uses for these things, the first I mentioned above, somewhat of an atheist rallying cry. It's kind of fun to have a flying spaghetti monster on your car, or your binder at school or whatever. Second, it could be useful in a discussion with a theist, if you can get them to try to explain how they know the teapot doesn't exist, perhaps you can show them that the same logic could apply to their God.  Not that it would be quite that simple, but it could be one point among many that could work it's way into someone's brain.

The other thing that can be nice about these types of concepts is they provide a bit of shorthand. If I say "Russel's teapot" a lot of extra information comes along, you know I am talking about the difficulty of proving that something doesn't exist. If I say "invisible pink unicorn" you know I am also probably talking about contradictory attributes in defining something. But is this a good thing or a bad thing? I'm honestly not so sure.

Shorthand can be good if everyone is on the same page, but without going in to the details it is hard to know how true this really is. This can be bad enough when talking with other atheists, but when talking with theists it really could convey no information at all. There's no reason to think that a random theist will have heard of the invisible pink unicorn, and yet I've seen plenty of atheists throw it out like it's some kind of trump card. Furthermore, they often don't seem ready to explain what IPU is and how it applies to the conversation. They just kinda do a "invisible pink unicorn" then drop the mic and walk away. Sometimes if pressed they will just say to go look it up on wikipedia or something. That's crap! At best this suggests that they are just too lazy to explain things, and at worst they don't really understand the point of it in the first place.

While there are times when these ideas fit perfectly into a discussion, I think it would be to our benefit to instead create examples from the ground up to fit whatever argument we are having. Trying to fit one of these examples into an argument where it doesn't quite fit can be counterproductive. Alternatively, we should assume that whoever we are talking to has never heard of it and explain it completely.

Genesis 47: Just Turn Them Into Slaves

Today's Podcast

Jacob's Family Settles in Goshen (v. 1-12)

Joseph took some of his brothers to Pharaoh and asked his permission to move to Goshen, Pharaoh said sure. The Joseph brought Jacob in to see Pharaoh and Jacob blessed the Pharaoh twice. Pharaoh asked how old he is and Jacob replied 130 years. Interestingly, Jacob also said his life has contained evil and is shorter than the life of his fathers.

Jacob blessing the Pharaoh seems strange to me, but I guess Jacob was incredibly successful. Perhaps one powerful person blessing another is just a sign of respect. Still the person in need blessing the person with plenty seems backwards.

According to Guzik, I seem to have the right idea here

Pharaoh acknowledged Jacob was a man of God by accepting his blessing. In the Egyptian religion, Pharaoh himself was thought to be a god. They considered Pharaoh the human embodiment of Ra, the sun god. This means that it was remarkable that he allowed Israel to bestow a blessing on him.

I try to take things at face value for my analysis as much as possible, but it seems to me that this was likely inserted here to add legitimacy to the story. "Look, even the powerful Pharaoh accepted Jacob's blessing". Obviously just a guess, but the whole thing certainly seems strange.

I also found the idea of evil in his life making him live less time interesting. I know people often claim that the people right after the fall lived very long (~900 years) and their years grew shorter as sin crept in. As I recall, there's wasn't a lot of actual biblical evidence for that, is this some indication of that type of thing? Furthermore, is the claim that sin will generally make people live shorter lives? This seems like it could be easily falsified.

I love how Guzik just reads into this whatever he wants to see. In describing how old he is, Jacob uses the word pilgrimage, and it is interpreted this way

Jacob confessed he was on a pilgrimage. He knew that his real home was somewhere else: heaven.

Didn't they not even have an idea of heaven back then, but instead it was all about living on through your offspring? I wish I had a good reference for this, but I'm pretty damn sure that the whole concept of heaven didn't come along until much later.

Joseph and the Famine (v. 13-31)

The famine was very harsh and everyone used all of their money to buy food from Joseph, which went into the coffers of the Pharaoh. The people then complained that they had no money and had to buy food, so Joseph said he would take their livestock. The next year they came back and said they had no food or animals and Joseph gave them food in exchange for their land and for them to work the land as slaves to Pharaoh. Since the Pharaoh owns the land, from now on he will get 20% of whatever is produced.

The biggest problem I have here is that they are buying their own food back from the government. They got taxed very severely in the times of plenty and are now having to give up everything they own to get the food back that they grew themselves. Then at the end it is declared that since they are owned by the Pharaoh they have to pay him 20% of whatever they make from now on. But that's what they had to pay for the 7 years before the famine, so what has changed? They should have just given the food back to the people, when people are starving, how does it make sense to give them food in exchange for their ability to produce more food in the future?


Jacob lived another 17 years and they prospered in Egypt, but when he was about to die he made Joseph promise to bury him where his fathers were buried rather than in Egypt.

Wait a minute, I can't believe I didn't notice this until just now. Jacob had two fathers, apparently gay marriage is endorsed in the bible. Case closed.

Memes of The Week

I recently decided it might be fun to collect little one liners or phrases that caught my attention and memeify them. I thought I might try to make it a weekly thing, but maybe more of a "once I gather enough of them" thing.

From TWF in a comment on his blog post Premature Exoneration

From Ahab in a comment on Atheist Revolution

From Rebecca Watson on The Skeptics Guide to the Universe Ep 411

This last one is not related to atheism at all, but made me laugh so what the hell. From Adam Carolla on his podcast with Illeana Douglas

Patent System Out of Control

This last week, there was an episode of this american life and an episode of planet money dealing with our current patent system. Holy crap is it broken! The heart of the problem seems to be that you can patent an idea, but having an implementation isn't necessary. The planet money episode digs into a particular case about podcasts, some guy patented the vague idea of patenting episodes and downloading them and wants all podcasters to pay him a royalty. ipods didn't even exist when he made that patent, let alone podcasts. Fuck that guy and fuck the system that makes this even a possibility.

The system allows you to patent an idea, wait years or decades for someone to actually invent the thing, then go sue them for a royalty. My wife and I were dumbfounded listening to this crap. I guess I might as well take advantage of the system, I'm going to go patent a jetpack. Hopefully someone else will go invent one and I can get rich off of it.

Image source

In all seriousness though, I have little to contribute here, except to try to help get the word out. Everyone should go listen to those shows (This American Life and Planet Money) and spread the word.

Genesis 46: Jacob and Joseph Reunited

Today's Podcast

Joseph Brings His Family to Egypt (v. 1-27)

Jacob (Israel) brings his family and all of his stuff to Egypt. We also get nearly 20 verses of the names of his descendants. Your welcome.

I thought it was interesting that the narrator called him Israel, but God called him Jacob in his dream. Didn't God change his name from Jacob to Israel twice? Why does he now call him Jacob again?

[Note: I had an idea for a comic based on this, but didn't have time to make it. God is drunk and telling Jacob he is changing his name to Israel and Jacob asking God if he'll even remember this conversation in the morning, maybe I'll make it later]

Jacob and Joseph Reunited (v. 28-34)

The family settles in Goshen and Joseph goes down there to see them. The Pharaoh says they can stay there because shepherds are an abomination to Egyptians.

Did Egyptians really think that of shepherds? Seems a little nuts as it is a source of meat, I'm guessing they had no problem getting the benefits of the surrounding shepherds. Not that this type of hypocrisy is anything unique.

Jacob says that he can now die since he knows Joseph is alive.

I suppose this is an old expression akin to "Now I can die happy" or something.

We Can't Wear Crosses

Recently I was reading Teach Not Preach (a great blog btw, a high school teacher has a comparative religion class and blogs about it). Included in a post he had a funny fake letter to Dr. Laura Schlessinger which I will include here. It attacks the idea of a biblically reasoning for being against homosexuality by pointing out many other things that could be argued for biblically. It was amusing, but also accurate based on the bible.

Not surprisingly, some Christians take issue with this type of thing, and one such person commented. I thought about responding, but I was afraid it would turn into quite an argument and I didn't want to do that on someone else's blog unless he got it started. Alas, he did not. But I'm going to complain here :) Let's get started

Do you show videos about “everyday Christians”? The ones who are prevalent, questioning, challenging, compassionate? The majority of Christians and not the extremists? I think a critical look (and sometimes a comical look is just fine) is important, but it’s also important to truly understand the person next door… or next desk.

I agree that most Christians are not extremists, but I don't think most do a lot of questioning about their faith. Of course this depends a lot of location, but I certainly know that the people I grew up around absolutely did not spend much time questioning, and this seems to be fairly common in a lot of places. But I understand, he doesn't want his group to be misrepresented. And honestly, most Christians don't really follow the bible, which is why the items brought up in this letter are such a surprise to them.

The many (most) Christians who(m?) I know who(m?) support marriage equality, who(m?) abhor discrimination?

Again, I think this depends on which population of Christians you look at, but I certainly don't see a lot of evidence that most Christians "abhor discrimination". Who is against marriage equality but the religious (and in America that pretty much means Christians). Sure, it's possible that most people he knows are all for gay marriage, but it seems this isn't typical.

What disturbs me most about curriculums today, is that it is not appropriate to reflect Christianity in a positive light, but it’s okay to discuss from a negative or comical perspective. 

Much to the chagrin of the religious right, I don't think there is officially much religion being taught in schools at all, which is exactly why this guy's class has a blog at all, because it is such a rarity. Plus, after following his blog for a fairly short time, it seems that his class looks at both the good and bad aspects of religion, both for Christianity and for other religions. But now he really loses it

We can’t wear a cross or call it Christmas, or use “God”, but we must accept and celebrate minority religions without discrimination or prejudice.

Are you kidding me? People wear crosses everywhere. The war on Christmas thing is utter bullshit, people just got up in arms when some businesses tried to be more inclusive and instructed their employees to say "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas". And what minority religions is he talking about? Because I don't know a single other religion that gets by without discrimination in this country. This statement is a perfect example of Christian privilege.