Tony\'s God (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, November 24, 2011, 18:20 (4749 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

We seem to be switching roles: I began as the prosecutor of God and then became the defender of Cain. In this case, the one depends on the other, but as you now refer to yourselves as the defence, I will resume my title of prosecutor.

The defence has stated that farming was a punishment, and that “because original sin had passed to the sons, the punishment did, as well.” I have asked why, in that case, Cain was a farmer (punished) whereas Abel was a shepherd (the right thing to be – not punished). The defence reiterates that farming was a punishment – which the prosecution has accepted, since it already shows a bias on God’s behalf against farmers and against Cain.

DEFENCE: ...the defence never said that Abel did not farm.

The records state: “Abel came to be a herder of sheep, but Cain became a cultivator of the ground.” That’s it. They don’t state that Abel became a shepherd AND a farmer, whereas Cain became a farmer but did or did not become a shepherd. Why does the text stress the contrast between them with the conjunction “but”? The defence are making things up as they go along. The only documentation we have shows that Cain (farmer) was punished and Abel (shepherd) was not. Sheer prejudice on the part of the defendant (God).

The defence have sought to distract attention from the weakness of their case by focusing on my personal dislike of fat, as referred to jocularly before I made the case for the prosecution. They continue to talk as if the contrast between fatty bits from “some of the firstborn” and “some fruit” proves that Cain kept the best fruit for himself. That is pure conjecture. As for compensation, why did Cain offer the fruits of his hard labour in the first place? I repeat, there is no evidence that he gave God a load of second-rate stuff. But clearly he did make an effort to please God. And God rejected it.

One of the defence lawyers drew the analogy of parents favouring one child over another. “Did this hurt my sister?” she asks. “Of course it did.” Granted, Cain should not have killed his brother, but since those representing God feel free to speculate on what might have happened, let me do the same, though I shall follow the written record and the defence’s own interpretation of farming as a punishment. Right from the start, Abel is smiled on by God (you’ll be a nice shepherd) and Cain is frowned on (you’ll be a nasty farmer). In the hope of getting a friendly pat on the back, Cain spontaneously offers God some of his hard-won fruit. Abel sees what’s happening and comes running along with his own fatty offering. N.B. the records suggest that Cain went first. “[...] Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. But as for Abel, he too brought some firstlings of his flock, even their fatty pieces.” (King James version) God, as usual, says yuck to Cain and well done to Abel. That’s the last straw for Cain. And one can even imagine (no evidence here, just speculating) that Abel might have taunted his brother: “Yah boo, God loves me and he doesn’t love you” – a fact recognized even by the defence. No excuse for the murder, but it may help future generations to understand how prejudice and discrimination (as evidenced by the records) may drive a man to desperate measures.

Let me say how delighted I am that an esteemed member of the jury (BBella) has seen the light already. I have no doubt others will follow.