This is interesting:
The man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have produced a man with the help of the LORD.”
2
Next she bore his brother Abel. Abel became a keeper of flocks, and Cain a tiller of the soil.
3
In the course of time Cain brought an offering to the LORD from the fruit of the soil,
4
while Abel, for his part, brought one of the best firstlings of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering,
5
but on Cain and his offering he did not. Cain greatly resented this and was crestfallen.
6
So the LORD said to Cain: “Why are you so resentful and crestfallen?
7
2 If you do well, you can hold up your head; but if not, sin is a demon lurking at the door: his urge is toward you, yet you can be his master.”
8
Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let us go out in the field.” When they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.
9
Then the LORD asked Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?” He answered, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?”
10
The LORD then said: “What have you done! Listen: your brother’s blood cries out to me from the soil!
11
Therefore you shall be banned from the soil that opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand.
12
If you till the soil, it shall no longer give you its produce. You shall become a restless wanderer on the earth.”
13
Cain said to the LORD: “My punishment is too great to bear.
14
Since you have now banished me from the soil, and I must avoid your presence and become a restless wanderer on the earth, anyone may kill me at sight.”
15
3 Not so!” the LORD said to him. “If anyone kills Cain, Cain shall be avenged sevenfold.” So the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest anyone should kill him at sight.
This is one of the more interesting passages in the Bible. Despite its appearance, I don’t see how this passage can be about the appropriateness of worship before God. At no point does the Bible say anything about why God rejected Cain’s offering, only that He did. If this was about how to worship God, the reason Cain’s offering was rejected would be of paramount importance. It would be central to the story. But the Bible doesn’t discuss that aspect of the story at all.
Instead, it clearly shows God having mercy, of a kind, to Cain. Step back for a moment and look at what Cain has done. If you accept the story of the Bible as an absolute truth, Cain has murdered not only his brother but fully 25% of the human race in existence at the time*. Hitler and Pol Pot on their best days never envisioned such carnage. And yet God lets him live. More, God ensures that anyone who would take vengeance on Cain would be punsihed seven fold. The mark of Cain, then, is as much a protection as a punishment. God, it seems, is not a fan of the death penalty. God, in fact, doesn’t appear to be a fan of the kind of punish forever nonsense that “law and order” types like to advocate. God delivers a punishment, and then not only lets Cain get on with his life but takes active steps to ensure that he is unmolested.
Glen Beck, I am sure, would think that God was coddling a criminal. But it is certainly interesting that the Bible, written at a time when life was much, much more violent, holds out against disproportionate punishment and for a kind of rehabilitation for criminals.
*Yes, I realize that this is pretty quickly contradicted. Heck, it is even contradicted in the passage quoted. But at this point, the Bible clearly says there are only four people worth mentioning, so lets just roll with it.
leanleft
Kevin
tgirsch
Kevin T. Keith
Judd
For those of us who don’t try memorizing out-of-date literature, could you link to or at least cite chapter and verse?
Even setting aside whether Yahweh/Elohim is omniscient, verse 6 here makes him out to be a humongous douche-nozzle. “Why are you so butt-hurt after I dissed you in front of all your friends?”
And the rather non-sequitur verse 7, as much as any sense can be made of it in the surrounding context, seems to be that Cain just wasn’t trying hard enough, not that the great drama queen told him what he did wrong.
As for your interpretation of the punishment, I think your hope for rehabilitation is pure fantasy. And really, the rest reads more as “Well, if somebody kills you immediately, you’ll hardly get to suffer with the punishment I give you.”. This seems more greed on the part of the god for the exclusive right to cause hurt to his human pet.
Quite right, Dan. The god character in the story seems to be reserving for itself the right to dish out punishment and its actions here could be construed as trying to keep the other minor characters from trying to muscle in on part of God’s leading role. What’s the point of creating this semi-autonomous-but-not-really ant farm if the inmates get to run the asylum?
Threadjack:
Since we’re talking about holy books and whatnot in here…..
That ignorant, hateful, moronic bigot in Florida who’s staging his little book burning on Saturday has inspired this agnostic into action. Having read this reverend’s version of things and being underwhelmed by it I think it’s only just I give someone else a fair chance; when those Qur’ans go on the fire I’m going to pick up my own copy and start reading it.
“I think it’s only just I give someone else a fair chance; when those Qur’ans go on the fire I’m going to pick up my own copy and start reading it.”
Sounds like a good plan. You really need to know about one of the sources of so much of the evil in the world. You can then burn it after you’ve read it.
I think Judd should be offered a guest post for breaking down the Qur’an in a similar style as being done by Kevin…I’d say you’re welcome to use my space, Judd, but I don’t write much these days and no one goes there with any regularity anymore. So….boys? The Qur’an brought to you by Judd?
Barbie
That is a brilliant idea.
Judd, you up for it?
It’s reasonable to discuss the bible as read in English, because a large number of the folks who value the bible use an English version of it. In particular, Kevin as an ex-catholic is using one of the catholics’ standard translations.
On the other hand, to my knowledge, English translations of the koran are not directly used by those who value it, which is perfectly reasonable; translation is necessarily imperfect. This does mean that Judd should make clear what translation he’s using, how that translation is considered by the users of the koran, and that his understanding of it will not have full applicability to those users.
Then again, it doesn’t really matter how bad a translation is being used when you start commenting about genocide and pederasty.
Jimbo:
Even if you’re correct and I find the Qur’an to be a source of evil then I won’t burn it, rather I’ll put it on the shelf next to the other high profile literary sources of evil that are all a part of my collection: Mein Kampf, the Communist Manifesto and the Bible.
Barbie/Kevin:
I’d be interested in the idea but I don’t know for sure I’d be able to make it interesting since I’m unfamiliar with my source material. I’ll give it a shot though and stick with it for as long as either my schedule permits or readers are interested in sticking with me on it.
Oh, and I still vote for you doing this. I only meant my comment as a warning.
Dan:
I’ve done a little preliminary poking around and I understood the points you were raising, my concern was that my attempt might be dull. From what I can gather from other people who’ve attempted what I’m about to, the Qur’an is said to be something of a dry read and I just don’t want whatever audience I have to get bored.
I also see Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church has pledged to hold his own Qur’an burning if the nut in Gainesville chickens out. I’m definitely going ahead with my reading regardless of anything else.
Okay, I picked up Ahmed Ali’s English translation of the Qur’an. I’ll start in on it on Saturday and write a little something over the weekend.
I’ve long thought about doing a Qur’an series, but I’d be more than happy to let the Juddster do the heavy lifting.
T – “Juddster” is not the preferred nomenclature.
(It’s “Juddly.”)
You’ve got your nicknames, I’ve got mine. I’m also fond of “the Juddmeister,” just to prove I’m a child of the 80s.
when annoyances are involved, you can always resort to calling him “Matthew”. Heh heh heh….