Tony\'s God (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, November 23, 2011, 14:33 (4750 days ago) @ DragonsHeart

The State versus Cain. The case so far: The prosecution have alleged that Cain did wilfully keep the best fruit for himself, and so God was quite right not to favour him. The defence have proved that there is no evidence for this allegation.

Next Session
The prosecution now offer a new translation (showing the unreliability of these texts), which says Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil, whereas Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The new translation provides no more evidence than the old ones. If I were a meat-eater (I’m not), the fat portions would be the last thing I’d want, but in any case, some fruit (which don’t have fat portions) versus fat portions from some firstborn does not prove that my client kept the best of the fruit for himself.

Clearly the prosecution are aware that they have no case against my client, and so they have now gone down a totally different route. They have produced one piece of evidence after another to demonstrate – I quote – “that farming was a punishment”. Let us discount the irrationality of such an attitude (and let us apologize to all farmers) and concentrate solely on the facts. In order to wiggle round Ezekiel’s assurance that sons would not be punished for the sins of their fathers, the prosecution tell us that “because original sin had passed to the sons, the punishment did, as well.” One of my learned friends informed us earlier that this was also evolution at work – if the parents are sinful, automatically the children will be sinful too. I would like to think we live in more enlightened times, but the jury can make their own minds up about the truth and justice of such generalizations. The case for the defence is now as follows: if farming is a punishment, and sons cannot escape from the sins of their parents, how come Cain was made a farmer but Abel was made a shepherd – thereby, according to the prosecution, fulfilling man’s original purpose? The prosecution are putting the plough before the ox by assuming (without evidence) that Cain was a sinner, but even if he was, by their reasoning Abel was too, so why should Cain be punished, and not Abel? The texts quoted by the prosecution do nothing but reinforce the defence’s earlier hypothesis that the author and/or God himself had a prejudice not only against farming, but also against Cain as a person. The prosecutors’ desperation to blacken my client’s reputation is laid bare by their final thrust: “If they were teenagers, with all the petulance that teenagers possess, then Cain might have given his offering grudgingly.” Is “might have” the sort of evidence, Your Honour, that would justify convicting my client? The prosecution go on to say that Cain might also have “been upset when his offering was rejected while his brother’s was favored.” Not “might have been” – the text states categorically that he was: “And Cain was very wroth.” So are most victims of prejudice. And so would you be now if people said you kept the best for yourself (no evidence), you might have been sulky (no evidence), farming is a punishment and you deserved to be punished because you had naughty parents, but your brother who had the same parents didn’t deserve to be punished. God liked Abel and he didn’t like Cain. As one of the prosecutors points out, parents often have a particular favourite. Does that prove the less favoured one to be guilty?

Your Honour, this case is not about my client’s murder of Abel, which cannot be condoned, but the prosecution are making an ever stronger case against the powers-that-be for extreme provocation.