The Blasphemer's Bible

305

Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0600

So here's Rachel's fool-proof plan. She covers her son in bloody goat skins, dresses him in his brother's clothes, gives him some goat meat, and pushes him into his father's tent. Brilliant!

In order for this plan to succeed, all that has to happen is, Isaac must:

Not know what goat hair feels like.
Not know what human skin feels like.
Not be able to smell the difference between a human and a goat.
Not differentiate Esau's voice from Jaboc's.
Forget what goat tastes like.
Forget what his favorite meat, venison, tastes like.

It's bound to work!

We've all read fairy tales and fables of blind people being easily fooled because of their disability. This only proves that those fairy tales were written by people who never met a blind person. While people who are blind may be lacking their vision, their other senses make up for this loss by becoming more attuned. This means that it would be even more difficult to trick Isaac with tactile, auditory, and gustatory sensations than a seeing person.

Not that it would matter much. How does Rachel expect to make chevon taste like venison? Anyone who loves barbecue can tell you what kind of meat they're eating, even if they can't see it. Each meat has a distinct flavor, and what's more, each meat has a different texture. Even if Rachel could somehow make goat taste like deer, it would still feel different to eat. Maybe a vegetarian who's been eating meat substitutes all their life would be fooled, but Isaac is a venison connoisseur.

It can be argued that Isaac was also succumbing to dementia in his old age, and that's why he was incapable of noticing this incredibly obvious ruse. However, the bible depicts him as being in full control of his mental faculties, so at best, that would be an assumption. And when you make an assumption, you make an ass outta you; and umption.

304

Thu, 29 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0600

Add "taking advantage of the disabled" to the list of things you can learn from the bible.

Too bad Rachel proves her stupidity in Genesis 27:11-14. She's going to try and fool a blind man into thinking a flayed goat skin is the same as human hair. If you've ever been to a petting zoo, lived on a farm, or have a functioning brain, you'll know that goat hair doesn't feel even remotely like human hair, regardless of how 1970s-porn-star the person is.

Rachel disrespects her husband's wishes and Jacob disrespects his father's wishes. They also both recognize that they're doing wrong�Jacob recognizes his father will curse him, and Rachel says she will take the blame if they are caught. Yet, even with their admitted misdeeds, it is Esau who is traditionally viewed as the bad egg of the family. As usual, believers vilify the wrong person, which makes me wonder how they view morality in general.

Am I spinning the story too much? It's certainly possible, but I don't think so. I mean, what has Esau done to deserve having his entire inheritance pulled out from under him? Marry a couple Hittites? Is that really worthy of God's ire? It's not like he's a racist homophobic anti-Semitic nutjob i.e., God� or Mel Gibson, take your pick.

303

Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0600

In Genesis 27:6-10, Rachel begins her extremely "creative" plan to hoodwink her husband. She explains to Jacob that Isaac is about to impart his blessing upon Esau, and that she intends to ensure that Isaac's blessing will be given to Jacob instead.

Obviously, Rachel and Jacob are intending to use deceit. However, believers will often argue that, since Esau already sold his birthright to Jacob, they're really only fulfilling the result of their bet, so it's okay. Trying to rationalize a lie is quite common with the human race, but that doesn't make it right.

Actually, though lying may seem easy to talk about, there are many different ways to commit falsehoods. You can lie by omission, lie through exaggeration, fabricate, bluff, mislead, commit fraud, lie with a good intention, tell a white lie, give a contextual lie, and tell various other types of lies. Each defines something that isn't fully honest.

The bible attempts to make lying into a sin, but it does a terrible job of it. Most of the main characters in the bible tell bold-faced lies all the time and rarely see any adverse consequences. Also, the wording of how lying is defined in the bible usually allows for plenty of loopholes making it okay to lie by omission, lie out of context, and various other forms of deceit.

If we are to assume the more radical ideal that all forms of deceit are evil, then we severely limit ourselves. For example, ask someone this hypothetical question and see how they respond, "Let's say you have a friend in your backyard who is a Christian. There is a knock on your front door, so you open it and discover and well-armed member of Al-Qaeda. He explains that he intends to execute any Christians that may be in your backyard. Then, he asks you if there are any Christians are in your backyard. Given that highly unlikely scenario, would it be okay to lie?" If you believe that all lying is bad, and should be avoided, then you'd be forced to rat out your friend and be instrumental in their murder. If you carry a very juvenile view towards lying, you will find yourself having to defend really stupid courses of action like this.

302

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0600

Here at chapter 27 we learn that there are evil doings afoot. Isaac realizes that he is not long for this world, so he calls Esau into his tent and tells him that he will bless him with his birthright. However, before he can do that, he wants his son to cook him one final meal of venison. Remember; the only reason Isaac loves his son is because they both like venison.

This makes sense, I mean, it's not like you can give blessings on an empty stomach. So Esau leaves the tent and goes out to hunt deer. Meanwhile, Rachel has been listening in on the conversation this whole time! The wheels of her diabolic mind begin to turn and she thinks up a wicked plan for how she can make a prince out of Jacob by throwing her other son under the bus. Remember folks, if you want to learn about family values, turn to the bible!

Of course, family values, according to most religious people, means disowning their own children if they're homosexual, not allowing teenagers to explore sex safely with contraceptives and then forcing them to keep children they can't afford when they have accident pregnancies, preventing loving same-sex couples from ever getting married, not allowing their suffering elders to die with dignity, keeping women in the kitchen where they belong, preventing children from ever being exposed to anything the parents find objectionable, and all sorts of other "valuable" practices.

301

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0600

Genesis 26:34-35 is an out-of-place tangent squished between chapters 26 and 27. It has nothing to do with the wells chapter 26 talks about, and nothing to do with the upcoming birthright dispute of chapter 27. Furthermore, it will be seen again several chapters from now. It makes you wonder if this irrelevant digression was ever supposed to be here at all.

However, the verse is here, and it lets us know that Esau married two Hittite women�an act that causes his parents much grief. No, it's not the polygamy that grieves them, it's the fact that he married those dirty trifling Hittite swine! The patch that Quazar is handing Isaac and Rachel is the symbol of the KKK, another group that hates people because of their race.

Esau even tacks on a third wife in Genesis 28:9. But wait, who did Esau marry? Here's the breakdown so far:

Judith, daughter of Beeri
Bashemath, daughter of Elon
Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael

Then, when we get to Genesis 36:2, we get something totally different!

Adah, daughter of Elon
Aholibamah, daughter of Anah
Bashemath, daughter of Ishmael

Two of the daughters have suddenly become entirely different people, and the the ancestry of Elon and Ishmael are both messed up. It seems like there was a bit of confusion in the record keeping, right? Apologists disagree. They have a very simple explanation for all of this: nicknames!

It seems that Aholibamah is simply a nickname for Judith, and while Beeri is indeed the woman's father, that must make Anah her mother (ignore the fact that mothers are absent from biblical lineages). Also, Adah is simply a nickname for Bashemath, thus she has the same father in both verses. And Bashemath is a nickname for Mahalath, giving her the same father. So, Esau married two women, both named Bashemath. See? Simple!

It's probably not even worth discussing that if Esau were a proper Jew he would be the world's very first 40-year-old virgin!