Why was Cain's sacrifice unacceptable?

In my supervision I try to be proactive. I try to anticipate the kinds of problems that might occur and set an environment which discourages them. I don't make eternal torment a punishment (that's thankfully against the law and I could and should be fired if I did so) but rather set up consequences that motivate reasonable behaviour. Can't share the legos and fight with each other? I put the legos up for the day. I don't let them shoot and bomb each other as they are doing in the Near East. The next day when I set them out the children are much more motivated to cooperate. Given conditioning and the functioning of our nervous system we are a kind of very complex robot. That Paul and the early Christians came up with some crazy ideas about how God functions in the world. I don't know about the end of the year particularly. I know I gave thanks several times yesterday. Most days I probably gives thanks at least twice. I'm not leveling accusations against God. I'm criticising the Christian claims that God is a good father and that because of that we should blindly follow in faith what the church tells us.lfen

lfen, I see nothing of great originality in this. I see much that is "proactive" in God's arrangements for human beings throughout many parts of the Bible. The cosmos are finely tuned for the whole existence of life on this planet. The universe itself testifies of God's tremendous "proactive" anticipation of man's life in it.So I would say any proactive approach you take with your children is based on the fact that you were created in the image of God. If you are a good parent you give both good incentives and bad incentives for your children. You don't just give positive incentives and never negative ones most likely.For example if your kids neglect their studies in school it is good to give them BOTH positive and negative incentives. Positively, you may tell them great benefits in securing a good education, including perhaps a graduation gift. On the other hand you may also provide negative incentive that to be negligent of their schooling will bring bad problems for them in life, perhaps a low paying job, limitations of all kinds, low self esteem.Have you not put before your children simultaneously negative and positive incentives?Your accusation that God uses only eternal torment to get His children in line is your caricature of the Bible. It would be the same thing as if one of your children told us that you only and always gave negative incentives throughout their lives.Eternal punishment was prepared for Satan and his angels - "Then He will say also to those on the left, Go away from Me, you who are accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt. 25:41) If man refuses to be saved from the Satanic rebellion man's destiny will be the same as that of God's enemy - eternal punishement. The unrepentent will go down with thier leader. If on the other hand the sinner is transfered into Christ, she will enjoy Christ's glorious eternal destiny. Where your leader goes you also will go.If when reading the Bible you only see God threatening man with eternal torment and nothing else, then that must be your myopic and biased tunnel vision. You seemed to have latched onto that compliant for a long time to self justify doing your own thing.Though I don't like the idea of eternal punishment I can see that God will do whatever He has to do to let all His creation know that rebellion against God CANNOT be a win. There is no way, no possibility, no chance, no hope that rebellion against the living God can be a win. The rebel against God MUST lose.Besides this, how much of the "torment" is inflicted simply because one is left with oneself and apart from God forever, is not known. The torment of damnation would be prefered by the damned rather than stepping into the presence of the God of love and light with the self knowledge that they have hated themselves to the extent of turning away from such eternal love. The torment of being in the presence of such divine light and love as a rebel against God would probably be worst pain than the fires of damnation. You sound like your kids are yet pretty young. Brace yourself for more challenging years to come when they reach about 13 to 17.Besides I see nothing terribly original in your taking away the enjoyment from both parties in the dispute. I see plenty of instances in the Bible where God held back the blessing because His people were not in unity."Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell in unity! ... Like the dew of Hernom that came down upon the mountians of Zion. For there Jehovah commanded the blessing: Life forever." (See Psalm 133)God commanded the blessing where there is unity. Where unity is missing the full blessing of God is missing. So I think your stradegy of witholding the full enjoyment from your disputing kids is only because you were created in the image of God.Nothing terribly original in your approach here either lfen. Before you did it God designed you that way. And too many places in the Scripture reveal that God held back the fullest blesshing where love and unity were not in place. Even in your breaking up disputes you take some amount of time though. I have no doubt that history is moving in the direction of world peace and justice. We are on the way, though it seems that the darkest times are yet to come.So I have to reject this idea because God is moving in a process in which even the Middle East will be a place of peace. We may not be happy with the speed of this process. But I trust that God knows what He is doing. Perhaps you would like to switch the discussion to one on biology?
But who is forcing you as a robot to participate in this discussion anyway? Do you deny that you have considerable freedom of choice moment by moment on a daily basses? What did Paul teach that Jesus didn't teach? So why do you want to say Paul and the early Christians are responsible for "crazy ideas" which Jesus taught? Besides, I already pointed out that at best your view is biased, myopic, and frought with tunnel vision. The outcome of your kind of Bible understanding is a warped caricature of only the things that you don't like put forth as the ONLY things taught in the Bible. Most of the people I know who give thanks and praise to God during the day don't talk the way you do. Yes you are. You're doing that also. But you are leveling accusations against God. You are also making blanket statements about following blindly what the church tells people.So everyone with whom you do not agree on spiritual matters is of course following blindly what the church tells them to do. But those who accuse God of only threatening people with torment are not following blindly like you.I think you are going along with your kind of warped tunnel vision based on your biased caricature of the Bible and your self righteous "More moral than thou" attitude that your a self made person. I think you fail to undertand that the virtues in which you boast are yours because you were made in the image of your Creator.This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-29-2006 08:36 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-29-2006 08:42 AM

What does any of that have to do with Cain's sacrifice?How about addressing the posts that are on topic, such as Message 187 and Message 189?(It's so rare that I am on topic. )

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Where in the world did they ever get to know "yehwah?" And why didn't they consider worshipping "yehwah" along with other gods Okay? The ten big laws are in the book of Exodus. You might apply yourself to become more familiar with the Bible while you are trying to critique it. Intimacy between men and women will lead to the producing of children. How do you know that this god "Yehwah" cared to be worshipped to the exclusion of all other gods? Where do you derive that information? The Hindus have thousands of gods. Who said "Yehwah" wanted to be worshipped alone? What historical records do you point to to demonstrate that the people were not worshipping "Yehwah" as they should? How should they have worshipped "Yehwah?" I don't think you need to rely on genetics to know that the jews were related to the Canaanites. You'll find that information in the Bible. So then the same reasoning was used to excuse how the Babylonians were used to punish the Jews? The excuse that they fabricated to wreak havoc on their enemies the Canaanites was latter used to explain why they themselves were cast out of the land and into captivity?At least they were consistent, eh?This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-29-2006 03:38 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-29-2006 03:39 PM

Then let me be the first to congratulate you!Maybe we should form a self help group? A twelve step program for staying on topic? We would have to begin by admitting we were powerless to keep ourselves on topic. And then move to accepting the assistance of a higher power...lfen

And another group on sub-titles. The Admin would be delerious.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The Apostle John says more than that Cain's sacrifice was less excellent. He says that Cain's works were evil - refering to the offering:"And for what reason did he slay him? Because his works were evil and his brother's righteous" (1 John 3:12) While it is difficult to prove from the text of Genesis, I don't believe that this was the case. Rather I believe that the first message of salvation and hope was delivered from God to Adam and Eve. Those words were passed on to the descendents of Adam and Eve. I believe that when the couple expected to die on the spot that they witnessed God kill an animal and cloth them with the slain animal's skin as clothing.This was a type of the sinner being clothed in the justification of the Substitute as his righteousness. I believe that God told them that their act of securing clothing should be accompanied by offering the fat of the animal to God as a sweet smelling sacrifice. I believe that this way was passed on to their children.Abel, lived for this. There was no other reason to raise sheep except for clothing and offerings in worship. He lived for God's satisfaction. Cain also provided a crucial need of people. And it could be that Cain deeply resented that his way of livelihood was not received by God as an offering the way Abel's was.Yes, this is reading between the lines. But in light of the rest of the Bible I'm convinced that it is perfectly justified and legitimate. The sacrifice of Abel pointed to what the Son of God would do for all mankind:"But now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested for the putting away of sin through the sacrifice of Himself" (Heb. 9:26)."By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all ... But this One, having offered one sacrifice for sins, sat down forever on the right hand of God, Henceforth waiting until His enemies are made the footstool for His feet" (See Hebrews 10:10,13)Christ is not only a man. He is also the eternal God. And the New Testament says that the Spirit of Christ was writing in the prophets of the Old Testament -"Concerning this salvation the prophets, who prophesied concerning the grace [that was to come] unto you, sought and searched diligently, Searching into what time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ in them was making clear, testifying beforehand of the sufferings of Christ and the glories after these" (1 Peter 1:10,11)This verse indicates that in His eternal function the Spirit of Christ, before His incarnation, testified in the prophetic writings the sufferings of the incarnated Savior and His resurrection glory beforehand. Where did I ever say that God loved Cain less than He loved Abel? I never said that. I never believed that. But along with the matter of God's love there unavoidably works the matter of God's righteousness. But for the record I NEVER wrote that God loved Cain any less than He loved Abel. He loved Cain. And His subsequent dealing with Cain, even though with discipline, indicated that He still loved Cain.Cain did not return that love.This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-29-2006 04:19 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-29-2006 04:22 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-29-2006 04:25 PM

Well, no. "Works" would refer to actions, not an offering - i.e. becoming angry at god's reaction to his offering. "Works" could also refer to the act of giving the offering - i.e. with a poor attitude - but not to the offering itself. Fine, but there was no message about sacrifice delivered to Adam and Eve. Why not? Because salvation and hope don't depend on sacrifice. Salvation is a free gift. That's an interesting thought. And their own feeble attempt to clothe themselves with figleaves would parallel Cain's feeble attempt at sacrificing plants.However, that only works if Abel's sacrifice was actually killed and the literal fat given to God. Since this is Bible Study and not my-belief-and-welcome-to-it, we have to go with what the Bible says - and it doesn't say that Abel's sacrifice was killed.If the bloodshed is so significant, why wasn't it mentioned? Why was the fat mentioned and not the blood (remembering that the "fat" can have a figurative meaning)? Why is no use of Abel's sacrifice mentioned at all (as opposed to the animal skins used for clothing)? And food.The sheep were more useful to humans than they were to God. Which is why Abel was giving up something. Since Abel's sacrifice was "more excellent", it stands to reason that he was giving up more, not less. Hmm... maybe I was confused by all the talk about Cain being "of the Evil One" and his works being nothing but evil. So you missed the whole point of my analogy.... Let me spell it out in more detail:God loved Cain (the baseball player) and Abel (the chess player) equally, but it was too dark to play baseball, so He chose to play chess with Abel. He would have played baseball with Cain the next day, but Cain couldn't wait. He got angry at God, upset the chess board and kicked (killed) his brother Abel.Did God love Cain less than He loved Abel? No.Did Cain love God less than Abel did? No. He just screwed up. People do that. He had a setback and he reacted badly. People do that. That's not a sign that he didn't return God's love. It's a sign that he was human.What was the difference between Cain and Abel? That one thing: when he had a minor setback in his life, Cain did the wrong thing. Instead of trusting God's judgement, he grew angry and took matters into his own hands.The lesson is to do the best you can and trust God to accept you. Don't feel slighted if somebody else seems to be more "favoured". You'll get your turn.Essentially, the whole sacrifice is incidental to the story - the nature of the sacrifice is irrelevant.Edit: spellink.This message has been edited by Ringo, 2006-04-29 03:13 PM

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

ok you can stop what the qoutes around the name it makes you look like a jerk, hebrew has no vowels so it really doesn't matteras for your questions it was a belief that he was the only god by the authors who were of the priest caste, they considered it wrong to worship pagan gods, how do they know about him? he was considered a war god at some point a son of El no it doesn't not most of the time and what about steril people, traditions are hardly if at all true what does that have to do with it? beliefs do not derive from god, he can say what he wants maybe he did want to be worshipped with others. people do not always follow what the worshipped wants, this is purely human nature at work if the other books were written before duet then i point to those. why are you asking me how it should be worshipped, what kind of question is that?
if anything they are all historic records of belief rather than history of the world, since they barely match any evidence what are you even talking about? the stories were written after the exile, the authors claimed god was punishing them for taking up other gods, it was another example of the priests trying to get the people to worship only one god - thier god.
heres a good site about some of the reasonings Page not found – Religion Online{ABE: i meant levititcus as the book, must have spaced out, but i guess this is very OT, maybe i should do a new topic }This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 04-30-2006 10:19 AM

Right. Abel amputated the fat off of a live sheep and let him go. I already spoke to that matter. The focus of the record is on God accepting or not accepting two offerings. In the instance of Genesis 3:21 with Adam and Eve, the focus is on how God provided for their nakedness and sense of shame before one another and God. That the animal was killed in both cases is an obvious but unstated detail. I also spoke to this before. Meat was not ordained to be eaten until after the flood of Noah (Compare Genesis 9:3 with Genesis 1:29).I think you derive some useful points from the record of Cain and Abel. With these I have no objection as far as discouraging jealousy. However, I don't accept these useful lessons as excuse to deny the very major tenet of the Bible concerning expiatory blood for the salvation of man from his sins.I have little problem with you pointing out "this" if it means "this too". But I don't accept "this instead of that". That is a big and major aspect of God's relationship with man. Though we became His enemies He still loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.Concerning the fat, in the case of Noah, the offering was "burnt offering" (Gen. 8:21). The same book of the same author probably meant that the fat of Abel's offering encountered fire also. Perhaps the fire came supernaturally as in the case of latter instances in the Hebrew Bible. This was perhaps how Abel and Cain knew whether or not their respective offerings were accepted.This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-29-2006 05:52 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-29-2006 05:55 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-29-2006 05:57 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-29-2006 05:57 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-29-2006 05:58 PM

As I have said before, the "fat" also has a figurative connotation - "the fat of the land", "the fattest of the flock", etc. It does not necessarily mean that the literal fat was removed from the sheep. Well, strictly speaking, the focus is on Cain's reaction to God. If Cain had said, "Okay then, I'll go get some more broccoli," the story would lose it's meaning. That's just the point, though. The killing of Abel's animal is not obvious - and not mentioned. Sometimes, when something isn't mentioned it's because it didn't happen. The eating of meat before the flood is something else that is not mentioned. I'm not just assuming that man has always eaten meat because we know that man has always eaten meat. On the other hand, you are assuming that Abel's sheep was killed because, well, you want that to be the answer. The first sacrifice does not mention "expiatory blood". We should understand the significance of that omission instead of just writing it into our Bibles.The significance is that "expiatory blood" was not of primary importance to the writers of Genesis, or they would have mentioned it. Since it is not mentioned at all in the story of the very first sacrifice, we should take a long hard look at whether the doctrine of "expiatory blood" holds any water (pardon the mixed metaphor) anywhere in the Bible. But we never became His enemies. God can have no enemies.Though we are prodigal sons, we can always return to our Father and He will except us as the sons we have always been. That's what He sent His Son to tell us. And interestingly, again there is no mention of blood in Noah's offering. In Noah's offering, evidently the blood was less important than the fire.Similarly, in Abel's offering, even if it was killed, the blood was unimportant. The bloodshed is a necessary part of the killing and eating of the animal, but it is not a part of "expiation" or salvation.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Ringo writes: Unlikely that physical fat is not indicated here in Abel's sacrifice, as in places like Leviticus 3:15 - "And the two kidneys and the fat that is on them, which is on the loins, and the appendage on the liver with the kidneys, he shall remove." Taking Leviticus a likely indicator of what God wanted, figurative "kidneys" or figurative "fat" on figurative "loins" is ridiculous. It is quite obvious to those who have faith in Christ's blood. And we are taught explicitly to have faith in Christ's blood -"Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; Whom God set forth as a propitiation place through faith in His blood ..." (Rom. 3:25)The Apostle Paul tells us that redemption is in Christ and that we are to have faith "in His blood". And the center of the Scripture is Christ and His redeemed elect. Abel's sacrifice pointed forward to redemption in Christ's blood.Ringo's unbelief in the symbolism of Abel's sacrifice stems from his rejection of redemption through Christ's blood, pure and simple. Don't be fooled that his rejection of the significance of blood in Abel's offering is for some other pretended reason.Then following what is most likely his doctrine of demons he writes: But the Bible says of the redeemed:"For if we, being ENEMIES, were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more we will be saved in His life, having been reconciled" (Rom. 5:10)What's that? Before people were reconciled to God through Christs' redemptive death, they were ENEMIES of God. Prepare for some fancy footwork as Ringo tries to twist his way out of this one too. I know that God ordained that man was to be vegetarian from Genesis 1:29 and that after the flood He ordained that that diet should include meat also from Genesis 9:3. Ringo claims that he just knows otherwise. But I count that God knows all the facts. The error must lie with what Ringo thinks he knows from some other source. There is no indication in the Bible that the patriarchs went against this ordination. To those of us who have faith in Christ the "hard look" has already been done and satisfied:" ... for it is the blood, by reason of the life, that makes expiation" (Leviticus 17:11) " ... for it is the blood, by reason of the life, that makes expiation" (Leviticus 17:11)I have no doubt that Ringo has followed "doctrines of demons" in his rejection of the importance of the blood of Christ shed for the redemption of sinners."But there arose also false prophets among the people, as also among you there will be false teachers, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them ..." (2 Peter 2:2)This warning of the Apostle Peter concerns false teachers who will arise and fight against the redemption of Christ accomplished by His death on the cross. The sacrifice of Abel points to this central revelation of the Bible. Many things are not specifically mentioned. But enough is mentioned so that we know that the Holy Spirit is pointing to the central act of obedience accomplished by the Son of God.Expect Ringo to encrease in his deception and attempt to draw more people to follow "doctrines of demons" who hate the work of Christ.This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-01-2006 09:34 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-01-2006 09:35 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-01-2006 09:40 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-01-2006 09:40 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-01-2006 09:43 AM

But you can't do that.You're thinking backwards. Start at the first sacrifice - Cain's and Abel's - and look at what we know about it. And think about what a "sacrifice" or "offering" means.There is no indication that God asked for a sacrifice in Genesis. It was offered.There is no sensible reason why God would need the sheep dead. Maybe it was zapped up into heaven, or maybe it wandered off into the wilderness. There is no indication that Abel or anybody else killed it.You can't just cherry-pick a sacrifice somewhere in the Bible, say Leviticus, and demand that it must apply to all sacrifices, before and after, for all time. Try placing more faith in Christ's life and His message, instead of in His blood or His shoes. And try sticking to the topic. Correct. We were already forgiven. Christ's blood was not needed to "redeem" us - and it is off topic. Getting desparate, jaywill? No responses that actually address the topic?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

It seems that, looking at some of the recent posts that have managed to stay on-topic, we're back where we started. God liked Abel's offering, but didn't like Cain's--that we can agree on. But as to why God liked one and disliked the other, we can't say for sure why.Whether Abel's offering was a blood sacrifice is not even certain; we can be sure Cain's wasn't. Even if Abel's was a blood sacrifice, we can't be sure that God rejected Cain's because it wasn't a blood sacrifice. It's possible that Cain's sacrifice was rejected simply because he did it grudgingly, or because he didn't offer up his best.BTW, here's another point that perhaps has been brought up, but between the on-topic and off-topic posts, I can't recall seeing anything about it: How did God reveal to Abel that He had accepted his offering? How did He reveal to Cain that He hadn't accepted Cain's offering?

---

Never overestimate the intelligence of someone who thinks you're wrong.

Ringo writes: Its not thinking backwards. Its thinking forwards. Christ was "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." So we're thinking from the foundation of the world forwards to the offering of Abel." ... the precious blood, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot, [the blood] of Christ; Who was foreknown before the foundation of the world but has been manifested in the last times for your sakes" (1 Pet. 1:19,20). So we're thinking from before the foundation of the world up to the time of Abel's sacrifice. His life is in resurrection. He is in resurrection because He was crucified on the cross, buried and rose again from the dead. And as for His "message" apparently Ringo is quite ignorant of that also:"And similiarly the cup after they had dined, saying, This cup is the new covenant established in My blood, which is being poured out for you" (Luke 22:20)And as for why God rejected Cain's offering? It is because God only accepts Christ as an offering for man's salvation. He doesn't accept you. He doesn't except me. He only accepts Christ. Abel's slain lamb was a type of Christ the only acceptable offering to God for man's redemption. More total ignorance of the Bible."Knowing that it was not with corruptible things, ... you were redeemed ... But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot, the blood of Christ" (See 1 Peter 1:18,19) Desperate people resort to little cute smiley faces where accurate theology is what is called for.This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-01-2006 02:10 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-01-2006 02:11 PM