Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I've wondered this forever and nobody of any religion has really had a satisfactory answer. In the bible, it states that Cain and Abel both sacrificed, but only Abel's were accepted, and in jealous rage Cain killed him. But why was he favored in the first place? It seems like this whole murder thing could have been avoided if God had at least made an attempt at being fair to both parties.

From a historical standpoint it's almost certainly an outgrowth of animal sacrifice. Able sacrificed animals and Cain offered vegetables, traditionally animals are the better one.

Alternately the Koran says that Cain's offering was not accepted because he wasn't pious.

Both are nice, but i'm looking more for the christian perspective here, as I know plenty about the historical context, and the Koran isn't really of much interest to me.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I've wondered this forever and nobody of any religion has really had a satisfactory answer. In the bible, it states that Cain and Abel both sacrificed, but only Abel's were accepted, and in jealous rage Cain killed him. But why was he favored in the first place? It seems like this whole murder thing could have been avoided if God had at least made an attempt at being fair to both parties.

They couldn't tell you because they didn't study their religion.

There's a couple of reasons that Abel's sacrifice was accepted and Cain's was not.

1. The sacrifice was supposed to be a blood sacrifice as a metaphor for the sacrifice that Christ would later give. It had to be the best of the first born among their flocks, to be representative of Jesus Christ and his "unblemished" spirit of perfection.

2. Cain did not offer his sacrifice in faith. We have to turn to Hebrews 11:4 to see that:

11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.



That scripture tells us a few things about Cain's offering.

1. Cain did not believe what he was doing would do him any good.

2. Abel, having faith and being obedient to the commandments of the Lord, knew what he was doing was righteous.

3. Cain, possibly, made his offering out of disrespect or at least he knew it wouldn't be good enough and, therefore, willingly disrespected God.



Now, we know that doing this sacrifice was a commandment from God prior to them giving the sacrifices. How do we know this? Because we have additional scripture from Moses translated by Joseph Smith.

Moses

5:5-7

5 And he gave unto them commandments, that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord. And Adam was obedient unto the commandments of the Lord.
6 And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.
7 And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth.



Now, that explanation from Moses was supposed to occur right after Adam and Eve were kicked out. After that, we were supposed to see Adam and Eve have Cain and Abel. THEN the story of Cain and Abel. If you read some of the first chapters in the old testament, you can tell that stuff is just rushed through and skipped over.

Because Cain was chosen as a bady in the fictitious work, probably because he looked like an arab

I've always liked Cain. Hermann Hesse did some tremendous work with this fable in Demain.

Originally posted by dadudemon
They couldn't tell you because they didn't study their religion.

....

1. The sacrifice was supposed to be a blood sacrifice as a metaphor for the sacrifice that Christ would later give. It had to be the best of the first born among their flocks, to be representative of Jesus Christ and his "unblemished" spirit of perfection.

What? Even Judaism didn't exist yet, let alone Christianity. How could they have possibly studied the story of Christ?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What? Even Judaism didn't exist yet, let alone Christianity. How could they have possibly studied the story of Christ?

God pre-planned it. Duh.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What? Even Judaism didn't exist yet, let alone Christianity. How could they have possibly studied the story of Christ?

Its how Christians interpret the old testament, through the lens of "Jesus is the foretold messiah"

it would be an answer from Christian theology, but doesn't necessarily answer the question of why the author decided it to be that way

Could the story have been a reflection of the struggle between hunter gatherer and agriculture?

As a side to the Cain and Abel business, was murder a sin back then? As Moses had yet (to be born) to come down from Mt. Sinai with the Commandments, murder being one of them.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Could the story have been a reflection of the struggle between hunter gatherer and agriculture?

No.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Could the story have been a reflection of the struggle between hunter gatherer and agriculture?

were this an anthropology convention, you might be the key note speaker

EDIT: add in something about gender oppression as represented by the burning of something and a critique of capitalism, and this ***** is ready for publication

Well, it can be and antropology convention.

The comparison is important, distinguish more honorbalbe professions from less honorable ones. The farmer was always held up in Greece and in Rome as the ideal type, replacing the traditional Jewish ideal of the sheperd.

EDIT: Clearly this is a story of unrequited homoeroticism, forced into murder by the socio-economic stresses of famine in the 4th C. BCE.

Originally posted by Robtard
No.

Originally posted by inimalist
were this an anthropology convention, you might be the key note speaker

Well, I don't consider the story to be real, and dadudemon completely nailed the answer to the question IMO. I also thought that
Symmetric Chaos's point about Judaism didn't exist yet leading to what was the original point of the story, far more interesting.

Originally posted by Ordo
Well, it can be and antropology convention.

The comparison is important, distinguish more honorbalbe professions from less honorable ones. The farmer was always held up in Greece and in Rome as the ideal type, replacing the traditional Jewish ideal of the sheperd.

EDIT: Clearly this is a story of unrequited homoeroticism, forced into murder by the socio-economic stresses of famine in the 4th C. BCE.

oh anthro...

maybe the entire field is some kind of long-running inside-joke

Shits and giggles?

Originally posted by inimalist
Its how Christians interpret the old testament, through the lens of "Jesus is the foretold messiah"

it would be an answer from Christian theology, but doesn't necessarily answer the question of why the author decided it to be that way

But there was no foretold anything until much much later, the prophets wouldn't be born for hundreds of years. Not that I really expect perfect internal accuracy from religion but that seems like a pretty glaring error.

Originally posted by Ordo
EDIT: Clearly this is a story of unrequited homoeroticism, forced into murder by the socio-economic stresses of famine in the 4th C. BCE.

Incestuous homoerotic murder over the favor of someone that neither had met before? Sounds like a CSI episode.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What? Even Judaism didn't exist yet, let alone Christianity. How could they have possibly studied the story of Christ?


Context fail.



The Christians that couldn't explain it to KK, not Cain and Abel.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But there was no foretold anything until much much later, the prophets wouldn't be born for hundreds of years. Not that I really expect perfect internal accuracy from religion but that seems like a pretty glaring error.



Incestuous homoerotic murder over the favor of someone that neither had met before? Sounds like a CSI episode.

1. Adam was the first prophet.

2. Stop trolling or GTFO.

i stop reading and paying attention in the post when i read about religious study and the mention joseph smith in the same sentence.

i figured god was just playing favoritism based on personalities.

kinda how ur parents tell u they love u and siblings equally but its not true.

like when ur brother needs a kidney and they expect u to give it up.

but if its u they tell doctors they are afraid to lose both kids.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i stop reading and paying attention in the post when i read about religious study and the mention joseph smith in the same sentence.

Odd, because the former occurs a the first sentence and the latter occurs halfway into my post.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i figured god was just playing favoritism based on personalities.

kinda how ur parents tell u they love u and siblings equally but its not true.

like when ur brother needs a kidney and they expect u to give it up.

but if its u they tell doctors they are afraid to lose both kids.

We already know why and I explained it in my post (with scripture, no less)

Originally posted by dadudemon
We already know why and I explained it in my post (with scripture, no less)
Yeah, Mormon scripture. Not a thing the typical christian would be throwing out as an answer. The only universal scripture you quoted was one saying Abel's sacrifice was "better" but not why.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yeah, Mormon scripture.

You didn't read my post, then. The "Mormon" scripture was supplemental from the actual answer in my post.




Originally posted by King Kandy
Not a thing the typical christian would be throwing out as an answer. The only universal scripture you quoted was one saying Abel's sacrifice was "better" but not why.

Read my post again. It would seem that the only thing you read in my post was the "Mormon scripture" portion.

Originally posted by dadudemon
2. Cain did not offer his sacrifice in faith. We have to turn to Hebrews 11:4 to see that:

11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.


I think this basically sums it up the best. Cain ends up having the typical human reaction. Cain assumes Abel had the same thought process and his jealousy springs from there, thinking it was favouritism from God towards his younger brother when it was actually his sincerity that God favored.

Originally posted by Robtard
As a side to the Cain and Abel business, was murder a sin back then? As Moses had yet (to be born) to come down from Mt. Sinai with the Commandments, murder being one of them.

i believe it was the fact that it what fratricide that mad god all *angry man*. because obviously if you were of of abraham's children or hangin' wit god for some other reason, you had every right to kill non-hangin' wit god people. so a ] he killed a fellow jew and b ] he killed his brother.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Both are nice, but i'm looking more for the christian perspective here, as I know plenty about the historical context, and the Koran isn't really of much interest to me.

Why would Christians know? That story was taken from Torah, and they had no say in documenting it.

This is not a question for Muslims or Christians, but Jews. Try a rabbi.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Why would Christians know? That story was taken from Torah, and they had no say in documenting it.

This is not a question for Muslims or Christians, but Jews. Try a rabbi.
Because i'm much more likely to have a discussion with a christian on the topic.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Why would Christians know? That story was taken from Torah, and they had no say in documenting it.

This is not a question for Muslims or Christians, but Jews. Try a rabbi.

Cain and Able is in the Christian Bible and also gets a mention in the Koran. It's a part of all three Abrahamic branches.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Cain and Able is in the Christian Bible and also gets a mention in the Koran. It's a part of all three Abrahamic branches.

The STORY gets mentioned in the Qur'an. The names of the two are never written nor mentioned.
Not that it makes any difference that it's mentioned in Bible or Qur'an, the original story is Jewish...not to say plagiarised, but borrowed.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The STORY gets mentioned in the Qur'an. The names of the two are never written nor mentioned.
Not that it makes any difference that it's mentioned in Bible or Qur'an, the original story is Jewish...not to say plagiarised, but borrowed.

Which changes exactly nothing. The story of Cain and Able is not exclusive to Judaism nor would Rabbis be the only people who know about it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which changes exactly nothing. The story of Cain and Able is not exclusive to Judaism nor would Rabbis be the only people who know about it.

Actually, it changes everything, since you wouldn't have a clue to the names of Adam's children by reading the Qur'an, had you not read Bible or Torah. The story is re-told and therefore lacks a lot of details Torah offers on the story, especially since Qur'an is not in chronological order.

In turn, Old Testament is basically Torah, so you're reading the one the same scripture - which is Torah.

There is nothing remotely Christian about Old Testament. They're grouped in the same scripture for the convenience of 'creation of earth' and stories such as Adam and Even and Abel and Caine...and other such...

People who wrote the story would have a better idea what it actually is, than those who copied it.

If anyone would even BEGIN to pull apart story and reasons, they would go back to the original source of the story - which is Torah.

Like it or not, Torah IS the source of the story, and therefore most ''reliable'' one (if that word can even be used in religious sense).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Could the story have been a reflection of the struggle between hunter gatherer and agriculture?

This is what Daniel Quinn suggests.