Cain and Abel: Explanation Please. Pretty Pretty Please!

[Drich]

Perhaps you ought to discuss this with Huggy who is convinced Adam is the son of god. Apparently so is Luke.

in any discussion one must define the parameters in which source material can be used to qualify a given subject. That is why I have elected the term "the God of the bible." In that phrase defines the singular source material that can be used to identify and or describe anything related to God. If you both agree on this point then simple deconstruct said arguement based on what the bible says. Seperate the religious beliefs from the actual documented scripture. Keep the scripture discard the rest no matter how popular it is. In the end you will have an accurate picture of the God of the bible.

And yes it is a leap to suggest the new leather clothes were a sacrifice. The animals could have died naturally. The could have just been used with no sacrifice intended, like my boots for example. If a sacrifice were intended the author of Genesis would have said so. Not all use of an animal is a religious sacrifice.

And who would be God sacrificing to?

Ah, but it's a bad analogy.

not true. A bad analogy does not include any parallels. If one parallel exists the analogy is valid.

Separation prevents the contraction of the disease by others.

how do you know this is not the case?

Cures are rather different.

how so?

And you don't really answer the question of why Cain gets a pass on murder or why his offering is rejected.

Actually I did in my initial answer of the op. You just don't like them. Because your theology is not biblically based, and I have not addressed your Catholicism based theology in a manner your expecting.

Again by identifying my efforts as being descriptive of the God of the bible, I have limited the conversation to the bible as the only source material valid for discussing the parameters of God or these events.

Just I cased you missed it. Cain was allowed to live because his descendants were needed for the coming events described in time of Noah. His people were to bring sin and destruction to this world like it has never or since seen.

His offer was rejected because God demonstrated a need for a blood sacrifice at the fall of man. (You can't get blood from a turnip.) Abel offered the blood required and Cain did his own thing. Abel followed God's example, while Cain didn't bother to go out of his way. He offer what he had avaiable to him.


---

If you want to argue god is not all loving, more power to you, but you are at odds with many other Christians. You-all can't agree about this god of yours. Hence the Adam is or isn't the son of god problem.

So?

I am not at odds with the bible. Therefore I am not at odds with the God said bible describes.

Because once again the doctrine of an Omni max God is a catholic construct, not a biblical one. With an god who must yield to the definitions and restrictions Omni benevolence places on said deity, The God of the bible is found in contradiction in many parts of scripture...

However if one simply assigns the qualities of God that God himself applies and tells us to apply all the contradictions go away, even if we loose the idea of Omni benevolent deity.

God tells us that He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. He calls Him self 'I am' and the God of Abraham. As such being an alpha and omega He quit literally can be anything he wants to be when and if he wants to be it. Can a Omni max God create a rock so big he can't lift it? If answered yes or no then he is in a paradox. Can an alpha and omega do the same? Only if He wanted to. Can an Omni max send people to hell? No, but the bible says yes.. Can an alpha and omega, yes.

So again if we are talking about the God of the bible and not some medieval R/C construct, then it does not matter what the majority of Christianity believes. We don't all have to be right in our beliefs, to have our beliefs to be right.[/quote]