Cain and Abel: Explanation Please. Pretty Pretty Please!

[The Grand Nudger]

I've also heard priests and rabbis place a great deal of emphasis on Cain's question to God, "am I my brothers keeper?" Some like to say that this sets up the idea that yes, humans are there to watch and take care of each other.

It's a good question to ask though, this being the "first death". How the fuck -should- he know, did anyone explain it to him?

In any case, the narrative as usually explained by apologists (and others interested in establishing theology) is utterly ignorant of the specifics of agriculture. That's to be expected, because the people that wrote this little tale -were the herders-, and the people who opine on it today -are not farmers-. In an indeterminate crop the "first fruits" are not necesssarrily the "best fruits". In a determinate crop there is no "first fruit" - only fruit. IOW, it's a fairy tale system of metrics employed in establishing the contents of a fairy tale narrative regarding specifics which the tellers of the tale were utterly ignorant of. Cain failed an impossible test, based upon ignorant metrics - leading, ultimately, to murder (and then profit..lol, apparently). Good job, God. Way to establish that moral authority buddy.

[Drich]

So what is the moral lesson of Cain and Abel?

Cain and Abel both make sacrifices to god. Abel is a hunter and brings meat. . . yum meat. Cain is a farmer and brings vegetables and grain. . . yum, yum, bread. But god is finds favor only in meat. God apparently demands blood. WHY?

The sacrifice of blood was established by God at the fall where He took an animal and killed it to literally cover what the sins of Adam and eve exposed.

From that moment on the shedding of blood was repersentive of the cost of sin.

This is like a father looking at the little hand made clay gifts of two sons and throwing bouquets at one and rejecting the other. What kind of good father would do that?

'We' are not God's children. Christ is. It is through Christ that we are 'adopted' by God. We are all sons and daughters of Adam and Eve.

God did not instruct his children, God instructed an ebolia patient in a sterialization process that one followed and the other did not. The one that followed instructions was welcomed, the one that did not was kept at arms length.

Next Cain kills Abel. Not good. I get that. You don't get to kill your brother because daddy loves him best. But why does Cain get a pass with just exile and a you can't kill me card?
Later in the OT the penalty for murder, let alone fratricide, is death. Why doesn't Cain have to pay that price?

Did you see the movie noah? I think they got it right in that their was a division between the sons of cain and the sons of seth. Cain got a 'pass' because he was needed to contribute to the events that were to come.
History is not made up of only the sucessful, but rather the most vauable lessons history can teach are of short commings and failures.

It seems to me that this is a tale about the arbitrariness of fate, not an all loving god. Anyone care to explain it differently?

What in the bible makes you believe that God is all loving?

---

No Christian explanation? Really?

Christians make up a small percentage of this on line community. As far as i know none of us are paid to watch the board and respond to everything ASAP. Give it a day ot two and if no one responds you can always take me up on my offer to PM or email me the question.

[vorlon13]

Maybe Cain offered figs ???

[Brian37]

So what is the moral lesson of Cain and Abel?

Cain and Abel both make sacrifices to god. Abel is a hunter and brings meat. . . yum meat. Cain is a farmer and brings vegetables and grain. . . yum, yum, bread. But god is finds favor only in meat. God apparently demands blood. WHY?

The sacrifice of blood was established by God at the fall where He took an animal and killed it to literally cover what the sins of Adam and eve exposed.

From that moment on the shedding of blood was repersentive of the cost of sin.

This is like a father looking at the little hand made clay gifts of two sons and throwing bouquets at one and rejecting the other. What kind of good father would do that?

'We' are not God's children. Christ is. It is through Christ that we are 'adopted' by God. We are all sons and daughters of Adam and Eve.

God did not instruct his children, God instructed an ebolia patient in a sterialization process that one followed and the other did not. The one that followed instructions was welcomed, the one that did not was kept at arms length.

Next Cain kills Abel. Not good. I get that. You don't get to kill your brother because daddy loves him best. But why does Cain get a pass with just exile and a you can't kill me card?
Later in the OT the penalty for murder, let alone fratricide, is death. Why doesn't Cain have to pay that price?

Did you see the movie noah? I think they got it right in that their was a division between the sons of cain and the sons of seth. Cain got a 'pass' because he was needed to contribute to the events that were to come.
History is not made up of only the sucessful, but rather the most vauable lessons history can teach are of short commings and failures.

It seems to me that this is a tale about the arbitrariness of fate, not an all loving god. Anyone care to explain it differently?

What in the bible makes you believe that God is all loving?

---

No Christian explanation? Really?

Christians make up a small percentage of this on line community. As far as i know none of us are paid to watch the board and respond to everything ASAP. Give it a day ot two and if no one responds you can always take me up on my offer to PM or email me the question.

If I point out the stories of Osiris Isis and Horus, and argue for how moral they were in trying guiding the lives of the Egyptians and how Horus was going to save humanity and how Ra and Osiris and Horus sat in judgment of the dead, by proxy that those depictions existed in reality, the gods are real, then you must believe it because someone claimed it.

If I quote a moral story out of the Koran that condemns an immoral act, by proxy of quoting the Koran, it must make Allah a real god.

This is why I hate getting into arguing the stories of any holy book. You fail to see that other people of other religions try to justify the stories in their books as well.

If you will not by the stories of other people trying to justify their books, then you are suffering from confirmation bias.

Even before you get to the first word of any holy book claiming any deity, none of you have established the existence of such an invisible sky hero, much less the necessity of one being a requirement.

[Cato]

Obvious conclusion: vegans are evil cunts and should be ostracized.

Kidding aside:

I find Michael's discussion of envy meaningful and useful, but find the 'duty to God' as a central theme of the narrative unsatisfying and simplistic considering the fate of Cain. God kicks Cain off his land, but essentially pardons him by marking him so that nobody will kill him in return for his offense. Cain goes on to build the first city and his progeny give humanity music and metal working (Biblical origin of art and technology?). The mysterious ways defense must be invoked to make any sense of why God did not prevent Abel's murder and annihilate Cain if we are to believe that reserving the best for God is of any real importance or consequence in this story.

Speaking of city building reminded me of Romulus and Remus. Using brothers as an ancient literary motif was quite popular: Castor and Pollux, the Ashvins, Jacob and Esau, Anubis and Bata. Popular interpretations suggest that the brother motif is used to convey our internal struggles in reconciling seemingly contradictory qualities in our character and desires.

I have always had great sympathy for Cain and the inherent injustice of preference based on whim absent any established and agreed standard. Apparently, when it comes to gift giving, God isn't fond of the Golden Rule or the idea of 'It's the thought that counts'. I also think the story's juxtaposition of industry and leisure relative to evaluation demands some consideration for Cain's reaction (no, I'm not condoning murder as a means of addressing a perceived grievance).

There's plenty more in this tale to be mined.

[The Grand Nudger]

What in the bible makes you believe that God is all loving?

Nothing, of course. Specifically, it's firmly established in earlier narratives that the people who invented your god saw agriculture as a curse, and agricultural settlements as places of inequity (though they just couldn't help but claim them....somehow, with their "mark of cain" bullshit - I guess deep down, under all that goatfuckeriness, the cities had allure even to them). They certainly had no love for farming or farmers. Of course the proceeds of a curse were never going to be suitable offerings to a god who clearly detested ag. It wouldn't have mattered what sort of fruits and veggies Cain offered up for sacrifice, he was fucked from the word go.

Back in reality, this describes the ideological bias thre authorsd had, but also the (still common) experience of conflict between herdsmen or grazers and agriculture. Ag was wining at that period in time, it was "murdering" the shepherd (that's why those cities get such explicit mention in the subsequent narrative). Did the same out in the american west, thousands of years later. There's a fundamental conflict of interest between the two groups of people. I think the story makes for wonderful allegory, but I think that the authors were talented - not just scribbling "notes from the front". "Law and Order", not the minutes of a courtroom, eh?

We have a story here about one of the most pressing social and economic issues of the time, complete with fratricide - and ghosts! Let me get my popcorn popped.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This is a classic tale of the struggle between herders and farmers. In the case of this particular bullshit story, it was told by the herding culture...i.e. the southern kingdom and SURPRISE fucking 'god' finds favor in their sacrifice. Then the angry farmer kills the poor, deserving, herder.......

I imagine the story had a different ending when told in the farming cultures in the more agrarian sections of the region. Since the farmlands were considered valuable they were overrun by various conquerors while the goat fuckers....um, herders.... were able to enter into a vassal relationship with the conquering Assyrians.

It's a pile of shit. Like the rest of the bible.

This is how I've looked at it, especially since reading Robert O'Connell's Soul of the Sword (a history of weapons), wherein he goes into a little detail about the transition from herding to farming, and the tensions which drove the development of weapons such as the compound bow and the sling-propelled spear.

[theophilus]

By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks.
(Hebrews 11:4 ESV)

God sees not only what people do but why they do it. Cain did the right thing but apparently it was for the wrong reasons.

[Minimalist]

Maybe Cain offered figs ???

Or fags? That would have really pissed off old yhwh.

[Huggy Bear]

So what is the moral lesson of Cain and Abel?

Cain and Abel both make sacrifices to god. Abel is a hunter and brings meat. . . yum meat. Cain is a farmer and brings vegetables and grain. . . yum, yum, bread. But god is finds favor only in meat. God apparently demands blood. WHY?

You should notice that Cain is not mentioned in the genealogy of Adam which means he was not Adams son. The original sin was not about Eve eating fruit, but was about her having sexual relations with the serpent (before he was cursed, he was humanoid, not a snake). She then had sex with Adam, which is what caused them to realize they were naked.

The Bible says that "By faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain". In other words, Abel had a revelation that the original sin was a "blood" sin (which is what semen is) and only blood could atone for it, but Cain thought the original sin was about fruit, therefore he offered fruit as a sacrifice.

Which is why he was rejected.

I'm being brief, Hope that makes sense.