Cain and Abel

Originally posted by rwingett
Perhaps Jesus' 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness represents a longer period of time during which he meditated and found enlightenment.

At what age is this forty days and forty nights?

It is said that without a competent masters attention most will not be enlightened, lest they get lucky😉
So in all probability JC went somewhere to seek a teacher. And you mention that his teachings resmble bhuddists teachings,etc.
Indeed there is something amiss here. This bible says nothing of the Son of God for 30 years. Hmmmm....

Originally posted by rwingett
Needing to till the ground was a result of The Fall. It was a punishment. Formerly, the "Earth herself, untroubled and untouched by the hoe, unwounded by any ploughshare, used to give all things of her own accord." I fail to see how anything derived via agriculture would be looked upon favorably.

While labeled as a curse, I tend to think of it as ultimately a blessing. I tend to see a modern need of this so called curse. The need to work is a necessary part of a mature adult. The story is further development of mankind's independence upon God to supply his every need. Surely you would see this as not a bad thing.

Originally posted by kirksey957
While labeled as a curse, I tend to think of it as ultimately a blessing. I tend to see a modern need of this so called curse. The need to work is a necessary part of a mature adult. The story is further development of mankind's independence upon God to supply his every need. Surely you would see this as not a bad thing.

Yes, i see what you mean. It has been a necessary evil, a stepping stone in mans spiritual evolution.
With greater power comes greater and greater responsibility. Kinda like Dragonballs-if you have the power to destroy a planet you should probably be responsible, in some aspect, to have gained such power.

Originally posted by rwingett
Perhaps Jesus' 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness represents a longer period of time during which he meditated and found enlightenment.

Many theologians would agree with that assessment. The number represents a season of change as used in this context. it is also the number of the waiting, the preparation, the test or the punishment. Also the Bible often resorts to the number 40 when it starts a new chapter of history. On the other hand, forty could indicate the duration of a generation or a long period, ignoring the exact length. The Jews were indeed numerologists and placed great value in certain numbers, especially 40.

Originally posted by rwingett
Interesting. I'm not familiar with that one. I'll have to look into it.

It's a superb play - one of the most underrated blank verse dramas in the English language. Rarely staged, but I saw a fine student production at Cambridge when I was about 19. It was not really meant for performance, though, so it reads very well on the page.

Originally posted by Teinosuke
In Byron's blank verse play "Cain", the anti-hero associates his crime with the bloodthirstiness of a God only satisfied by an offering involving slaughter:

"Thy God loves blood!-then look to it:-. Give way, ere he hath more!"

I'd submit that Byron got it wrong, as well, in a forest-for-the-trees manner. The sacrificial system originating with Adam's first acceptable ritual, developed to the point of nuance in the nation of Israel, and eventually culminated by the work done on the cross by the Lord Jesus Christ had a few main emphatic messages.

Purity, of course, was a requisite. However, the emphasis on blood was not the gory, base depravity more at home in a zombie movie than in any serious conversation considering the intent of the rituals established by God. Instead, just as the 'purity' of the animal involved was representative of the holiness of God, the blood was representative of life, not death--- and that life being given/taken consciously. The system could have focused on breath... if the body didn't automatically perform the function for us. Letting go of blood is a conscious act.

To further underscore the lack of debased thinking regarding the blood issue, the penultimate sacrifice was nearly bloodless. The work done on the cross was finished prior to the spear in the side. While there certainly was violence involved as He made His way to Golgotha, the issues were His qualifications to bear our sin, His ability to do so, His willingness to do so. When these were clearly established, He declared the bridge built for that time, for before that time, for all time.

Originally posted by rwingett
Needing to till the ground was a result of The Fall. It was a punishment. Formerly, the "Earth herself, untroubled and untouched by the hoe, unwounded by any ploughshare, used to give all things of her own accord." I fail to see how anything derived via agriculture would be looked upon favorably.

But your take on it has Abel's vocation as primitive to the developed professionalism of Cain--- as though Cain had matured into a farmer, leaving crude sustenance behind him. This take is isolationist, in the sense that we don't see any indication of man as a hunter; instead, just the opposite with man and the woman eating of the earth's produce. The first animal death follows their banishment from the Garden... just the opposite of the scenario you're suggesting.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I bet he questioned God's Word too, maybe tried to make it sound like something
other than what God said. 🙂
Kelly

perhaps he read it and actually understood what he was reading instead of letting personal prejudice interfere with what he was reading

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Instead, just as the 'purity' of the animal involved was representative of the holiness of God, the blood was representative of life, not death--- and that life being given/taken consciously.

And thus, by a rhetorical sleight of hand, a grisly, cruel and primitive act of pointless slaughter somehow comes to sound like a celebration of life... I think Byron got it right.

Originally posted by kirksey957
While labeled as a curse, I tend to think of it as ultimately a blessing. I tend to see a modern need of this so called curse. The need to work is a necessary part of a mature adult. The story is further development of mankind's independence upon God to supply his every need. Surely you would see this as not a bad thing.

Having to work is not necessarily a bad thing. It depends on the time
one spends working and under what conditions. In pre-civilized
cultures, however, the division of ones activities between 'work' and
'leisure' time had either not yet been made, or was blurred to a large
degree. The curse of modern man is that his activities are starkly
delineated between these two categories. Consequently he has become
increasingly alienated from his labor. And as civilized life
artificially multiplies his desires, the more alienating work he is
required to do.

It is my contention in this thread that this process is essentially
what 'The Fall' represents. It is the removal of mankind from his
natural pre-civilized setting, where his needs are few and easily met,
and where his work and leisure time blur imperceptibly into one
another, to an unnatural civilized setting, where his needs are
greatly multiplied and difficult to meet, where work and leisure time
are in competition with one another, and where, as a result, he has
become increasingly alienated from his labor.

If we take agriculture as the primary thing which enabled civilization
to flourish, then we have the conflict above symbolized in the story
of Cain and Abel. Abel hearkens back to a pre-civilized Garden of
Eden, while Cain has his feet planted firmly in the civilized world,
with all its attendant evils being the product of his bitter harvest.
That is why The Lord smiled upon Abel and frowned upon Cain.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
But your take on it has Abel's vocation as primitive to the developed professionalism of Cain--- as though Cain had matured into a farmer, leaving crude sustenance behind him. This take is isolationist, in the sense that we don't see any indication of man as a hunter; instead, just the opposite with man and the woman eating of the earth's produce. The fi ...[text shortened]... ows their banishment from the Garden... just the opposite of the scenario you're suggesting.

I don't think the Genesis stories on the lack of hunting are meant to be taken literally. Primitive man, living in a hunter-gatherer society, obviously did hunt. What it means is that they had a proper respect for the web of life during their hunts, as did the American Indians, for example. They killed what was necessary and paid homage to the spirit of the animal. The post-Garden hunting represents killing of animals without proper regard for the web of life, where the animal is treated as a mere commodity. Factory farming would be the modern day equivalent.

In this scenario, primitive man is in harmony with nature. He kills what is necessary to sustain him and no more. Part of what is embodied within the concept of 'The Fall' is a mankind who is out of harmony with nature. He hunts species to extinction. He factory farms them. He has a lack of respect for the web of life. He is alienated from his true nature where he is an integrated part within the cycle of life, and instead has set himself in opposition to nature. He has developed an outlook where nature is something to be tamed and controlled. And in this regard mankind has alienated himself from 'god' and lives in a fallen state.

So I don't think a literal reading of events here is in order. The lion never lays down with the lamb, except in purely symbolic terms.

Originally posted by rwingett
I don't think the Genesis stories on the lack of hunting are meant to be taken literally. Primitive man, living in a hunter-gatherer society, obviously did hunt. What it means is that they had a proper respect for the web of life during their hunts, as did the American Indians, for example. They killed what was necessary and paid homage to the spirit of the ...[text shortened]... here is in order. The lion never lays down with the lamb, except in purely symbolic terms.

Yes, the power of evolution has lifted mankind from the law of universal entropy only to put us right back in it.

Originally posted by divegeester
Yes, the power of evolution has lifted mankind from the law of universal entropy only to put us right back in it.

No, it was it was agriculture, private property, and civilization that removed us from any universal entropy (in that order).

Originally posted by Teinosuke
And thus, by a rhetorical sleight of hand, a grisly, cruel and primitive act of pointless slaughter somehow comes to sound like a celebration of life... I think Byron got it right.

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 rwingett
I don't think the Genesis stories on the lack of hunting are meant to be taken literally. Primitive man, living in a hunter-gatherer society, obviously did hunt. What it means is that they had a proper respect for the web of life during their hunts, as did the American Indians, for example. They killed what was necessary and paid homage to the spirit of the here is in order. The lion never lays down with the lamb, except in purely symbolic terms.

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 offered by Adam--- and subsequently Abel--- as somehow lacking in proper regard for the web of life (whatever that means. Life is actually a net to attract bugs? Bizarre.), and yet despite all of the incongruities, God found the animal sacrifice acceptable but rejected the produce.

You're playing two ends against the middle and finding nothing in between!! Where's the beef?

The lion never lays down with the lamb, except in purely symbolic terms.
You're right, at least, in this one, for even the Bible says:

"The wolf also shall dwell
with the lamb,
and the
leopard shall lie down with
the kid;
and the calf and the
young lion and the fatling
together;
and a little child
shall lead them."

Sometimes editing isn't the brightest thing to do...