The mark of Cain

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not particularly familiar with 'the mark of Cain'. People in this thread seem to be implying that it was an inherited trait (from Cain onwards). Is this the case? Or are they speculating?

The naturalistic hypothesis I propose for consideration is that when the tribes that had the precursor of Genesis in their mythology came to explain the origin of people physically unlike themselves in some basic way, an explanation that fit rather neatly into the "mark of Cain" myth was developed. There could be a chicken/egg question -- it would be hard to pin down whether the mark of Cain myth came about before, or because of, the observation that there were peoples whose different appearance needed explanation.

If the above is accurate, then I would say the trait called the mark of Cain was heritable (genetic), such as skin color and associated morphological features, otherwise the mark of Cain myth would not have been developed -- the trait would be like the occasional albino or epileptic or other infrequent biological deviation, which came to be treated as possessions or the like.

Certainly white Protestants in the US are known to have accepted the skin color association, helping justify exploitation, so this explanation "worked for them" and it might have worked for ancient tribes, too.

Originally posted by galveston75
The Bible makes no mention of any color of skin that humans have as ever being condemned or looked down on for any reason.

That makes no difference in a naturalistic explanation. As I explain above, singling out a group of people based on some visible trait they shared and attributing a mythical reason to their trait, leaves it open what that trait was. But skin color is an obvious speculation.

Are there groups that these ancient tribes contacted, that shared a visible trait other than skin color?

To a Bible believing post-racist, it seems wrong that it would be skin color. But to a secular post-racist viewing Genesis as an amalgam of myths, it is not unreasonable that the story was developed from a need to explain visible differences between peoples of the time. Skin color is just one candidate.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You see black skin as a curse and affliction?

Or is it that he sees light-skinned people as inevitable racists?! Is that not racist itself? 😛

-Removed-

Genesis is so 20th century. It's an early form of QR code.

-Removed-

I see you don't want to address your bigotry nor my questions.

-Removed-

Would you two get a room or use IM? You're cluttering up this thread and G75 might not see my reply to his on-topic comment.

-Removed-

Yes, you make it quite clear in the OP that you consider being of a different race to be a curse.

We've been here before with you and this obsessiveness haven't we.
So your reaction is mainly due to other things I have said in the past on other topics?

I'm afraid I can't help you if you persist on being a prick; my only option remaining is to mock your posts.
You simply don't want to address my questions. Your OP makes it absolutely clear that you believe the existence of different races is a bad thing. I want you to tell us how the different races came about and who is responsible.

Remember that in the OP you are accusing the Mormons of being racist so you can hardly say it is off topic for the thread.

-Removed-

It may not be what you intended to mean, but it is a reasonable interpretation of the words in your OP.

- God would have known in advance that racism is endemic within human society and thefore to change someone's skin colour (i.e. create a new mark that didn't exist before) in order to "protect" that person would be counter intuitive.
So it therefore seems reasonable to ask who created the different races and why? It also seams reasonable to ask why you are so reluctant to address this question. A simply 'I don't know' would have sufficed if that is the case.

Final point. Yes, you are...
Yes I am what? I don't get it? Or is this just another of your attempts to mock my posts?