Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about, Freaky. Agriculture is not a step up from the hunter. It is the first step toward The Fall. I don't know what this "god-directed ritual" is that you refer to. Abel's animal sacrifice is not an animal sacrifice. It is symbolic of a hunter-gatherer lifestyle that is in harmony with both its own humanity and with nature. Cain's offering represents a post-agricultural lifestyle that is alienated from its own humanity and from nature. To be in harmony with ones own humanity and with nature is to be at one with 'god.' To be alienated from ones own humanity and from nature is to be estranged from 'god' and to live in a fallen state.
I feel like you started off with a workable thought problem, but you've gone off on a tangent that erodes the punch of your opening move.
You suggest that agriculture was a step-up from the hunter (despite the record from which you borrow to make the conjecture offering a decidedly different record), then insert some odd idea of the God-directed ritual ...[text shortened]... a little child
shall lead them."
Sometimes editing isn't the brightest thing to do...
Originally posted by rwingettI wasn't considering agriculture as an actual step-up, per se, as much as I was phrasing it to mirror your characterization of it as a progression or movement away from hunting--- as though Abel's profession preceded Cain's. Which we know wasn't the case.
I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about, Freaky. Agriculture is not a step up from the hunter. It is the first step toward The Fall. I don't know what this "god-directed ritual" is that you refer to. Abel's animal sacrifice is not an animal sacrifice. It is symbolic of a hunter-gatherer lifestyle that is in harmony with both its own humanity and w ...[text shortened]... umanity and from nature is to be estranged from 'god' and to live in a fallen state.
Rousseau had it wrong: there was nothing innocent about Abel any more than there was anything innocent about Cain or anyone who follows. Naïve, gullible and generally lacking in savvy? Well, certainly that was the case for Abel, but without a doubt he understood there was a war afoot. Why else would he have participated in the animal-sacrifice-that-was-an-animal-sacrifice (which he learned from his father, who in turn, learned from God), if he was not aware of the rift between man and his Maker?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt would appear that it requires very considerable intellectual gymnastics to persuade yourself that the spilling of blood and slaughter of an animal is somehow "about life, not death".
It appears you are projecting onto the situation a predisposition which is clearly not borne out by the facts of the narrative.
Originally posted by TeinosukeMore accurately, it is about the cost associated with both. Let's not move the goal posts. What is being refuted is the idea that there existed some primitive, debased blood lust, akin to trance-laden devil-has-my-soul Hollywood depictions of scary, scary "eevil" ritualistic killings.
It would appear that it requires very considerable intellectual gymnastics to persuade yourself that the spilling of blood and slaughter of an animal is somehow "about life, not death".
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe idea is not being refuted by you, merely denied.
More accurately, it is about the cost associated with both. Let's not move the goal posts. What is being refuted is the idea that there existed some primitive, debased blood lust, akin to trance-laden devil-has-my-soul Hollywood depictions of scary, scary "eevil" ritualistic killings.
Originally posted by TeinosukeI had the right word. The record does not reflect anything remotely close to the characterization of blood lust, therefore the same has not been established. I have eliminated the contention by virtue of pointing back to the record.
The idea is not being refuted by you, merely denied.
Next.
Christ Jesus said of the lie and the father of lies, that "he was a murderer from the beginning.", and the very 1st to have committed such was Cain.
Cain slew his brother due to his cast judgement upon his accepted offering to the Lord, which, as Christ also stated, they that judge another, shall be judged..
It was Cain's reflection to his judgement upon his brother that inflamed Cain just as one who experiences the same thing after judging one to be uncomfortable of another goes through such pain whenever that person appears in front of them. This is why he said "Judge not that ye be not judged", it's affects it manifests in consciousness..
Originally posted by tacoandlettuceend of quote
Christ Jesus said of the lie and the father of lies, that "he was a murderer from the beginning.", and the very 1st to have committed such was Cain.
Cain slew his brother due to his cast judgement upon his accepted offering to the Lord, which, as Christ also stated, they that judge another, shall be judged..
It was Cain's reflection to his judgeme ...[text shortened]... hy he said "Judge not that ye be not judged", it's affects it manifests in consciousness..
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedOriginally posted by tacoandlettuce
Christ Jesus said of the lie and the father of lies, that "he was a murderer from the beginning.", and the very 1st to have committed such was Cain.
Cain slew his brother due to his cast judgement upon his accepted offering to the Lord, which, as Christ also stated, they that judge another, shall be judged..
It was Cain's reflection to his judgeme ...[text shortened]...
~ and to continue~ his judgement upon his brother that inflamed Cain just as one who experiences the same thing after judging one to be uncomfortable of another goes through such pain whenever that person appears in front of them. This is why he said "Judge not that ye be not judged", it's affects it manifests in consciousness..