Jump to content

Why Does Yahweh Hate Salads?


Tabula Rasa
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hey all,

I got to thinking of the story of Cain and Abel, how they both offered Yahweh the best of what they

had. Cain offered the best from his garden, Abel one of the lambs of his flock. Abel's offering was

pleasing to Yahweh, but he wouldn't accept Cain's. The rest of the story gets tragic, Cain gets jealous

because Yahweh favors Abel's offering over his and kills Abel in a fit of anger.

 

So why wouldn't Yahweh accept what Cain gave unconditionally? Why weren't the fruits of the earth

as acceptable as a slain lamb? Christians will no doubt say that the lamb was a foreshadowing of

Christ, but to me it still makes no sense.

 

What's everyone's thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Theologians say that it was because Cain's offering wasn't accepted because he didn't offer up the best of his harvest and that his intentions in that offering weren't as pure as Abel"s. As far as I know, there isn't anything in the Genesis account that says that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two main views for how that portion of Scripture is understood.

 

Cain Disobeyed By Not Offering a Bloody Sacrifice

 

This one is, by far, the worst one. It assumes that god had told Adam and Eve that all sacrifices are to have blood in them. This assumption comes from the statement that god made skins to cover Adam and Eve's nakedness. The assumption here is that god killed animals the make the skins, thus shedding blood and that blood was shed as a sign that blood would be needed to remove sin (Adam and Eve would not have needed the skin coverings had they not sinned, so the story goes). So the further assumption is that god explained all of this to Adam and Eve and that Adam and Eve shared this vital information with Cain and Abel. Therefore, when Cain offered the "fruit of the ground" he was violating the supposedly spoken commandment that sacrifices were to contain blood. Abel's was acceptable because the blood of the lamb was a part of the sacrifice.

 

Obviously the main problems here is that things not written anywhere in the Bible have to be made up to account for Cain's sacrifice not being accepted. Nowhere is there any indication that god told Adam and Eve anything about sacrifices nor that they should contain blood.

 

Cain Did Not Bring His Best

 

This one is a bit better to understand and there may be some suggestion for it in the Hebrew language in which this was written. But you don't need to go into the Hebrew because the English captures it pretty clearly. Cain's sacrifice is said to be "of the ground" while Abel's sacrifice was of the "firstlings of the flock." There is no indication in the words used that Cain carefully selected the best of what he had. If he had 10 onions, there is no indication that he carefully looked at all his onions and picked only the best ones. The words used give the impression that he sort of just reached his hand in the sack and took out a few to offer without much thought. Abel, on the other hand, brought of the "firstlings." This seems to indicate that Abel thought about the sacrifice he was to offer and took the time to bring to god the best that he had (or so the story goes).

 

Some commentators make a big deal out of the fact that chapter three of Genesis says that god cursed the ground. Since Cain's sacrifice was "of the ground" some commentators say that Cain had the audacity to bring to god a sacrifice from that which was cursed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, lets look at this (including the theories that have already been posted).

 

3:17 And unto Adam He said: 'Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying: Thou shalt not eat of it;
cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field. 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread
, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.'

...

21 And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them.

...

23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden,
to till the ground from whence he was taken
.

It seems to me that the "curse" is that the ground won't produce as easily as it had been and it will also grow weeds. Is this curse really a curse? It's not a prohibition after all. If it were we'd all (mostly) be eating meat and no plants.

 

As for the skins, it says "god" made them. I'm one of the few people, I suppose, that took that literally. He MADE them. He supposedly made everything else up to this point but now, suddenly, out of nowhere, he's got to go kill a couple of goats to get their hides? How does that work? And "god" said "Here's a couple of skins" and *poof* there they were. Tada. It's magic.

 

Finally, "god" boots them out, not to hunt or fish, but to till the ground (by the original mud patch). "God" wanted this group to be farmers. It says so when it repeats that the ground won't be easy to work and that "bread" will take a lot of sweat to aquire (apparently "god" taught them how to bake and gave them oven tech) and says nothing at all about ranching. "God" does not appear to wants ranchers but farmers.

 

2 And again she bore his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but
Cain was a tiller of the ground
. 3 And in process of time it came to pass, that
Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD
. 4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering; 5 but unto
Cain and to his offering He had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell
.

So where did the two bring their offerings? Was "god" still dropping by for visits? It doesn't explain the process here. We imagine these were burnt offerings but they don't have to be. No sacrifices have to take place here. We imagine them as happening, as that was the tradition, but I'll get to that in a second. What also comes from tradition is the idea of "first." First fruits. So it looks as if Abel is offering his first fruits but Cain may not be. It doesn't specify and so we might assume he does not. This is what may be the cause of rejection.

 

It's right after this that their is a talk about "sin" and then Cain kills Abel. This blood is poured out onto the ground (as was the how things were done) and the ground was cursed. This is the first actual killing in the bible. Of anything. The first "sacrifice" if you will. And it is not a pleasing one. Not enough for "god" to do anything like an "eye for an eye" but he doesn't let Cain farm anymore. Instead Cain must found a city and live there. I guess cities are the punishment for human sacrifice? They can suck the life out of you. ;)

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel Quinn offers the explanation that this myth is about the rise of the farming economy and the consequent demise of the nomads. The evil farmer kills the virtuous sheep herder and founds a city which needs farms to survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be annoyed at Cain too if I had been God. Why? Because I like fucking MEAT. It's my favorite food in the entire world, and I bet God feels the same way as I do. Salad is merely garnish. Roughage serves the purpose of helping to absorb all that greasy bloody animal flesh I intend on cramming down my gullet.

 

"Motherfucker I want me a steak! Do I look like a fuckin' rabbit to you!? Now feel my wrath!!!!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on...salad is a good side with meat! What a jerk this God fellow is. Cain shouldn't have blamed Abel though...he should have just given God the finger and never given him anything else. What's God want with human food anyway? Isn't he fat and jolly up there with his "heavenly feasts"? When I was a kid and my mom didn't like the gifts I made her, and threw them away right in front of me, I was mad at HER...not my sisters because they were older and could buy her better things. What'd she need our gifts for anyway, she had plenty of money. Haha this is turning into a rant. God's an ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be annoyed at Cain too if I had been God. Why? Because I like fucking MEAT. It's my favorite food in the entire world, and I bet God feels the same way as I do. Salad is merely garnish. Roughage serves the purpose of helping to absorb all that greasy bloody animal flesh I intend on cramming down my gullet.

 

"Motherfucker I want me a steak! Do I look like a fuckin' rabbit to you!? Now feel my wrath!!!!"

 

You like to fuck meat? Hey, I'm not one to judge. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all,

I got to thinking of the story of Cain and Abel, how they both offered Yahweh the best of what they

had. Cain offered the best from his garden, Abel one of the lambs of his flock. Abel's offering was

pleasing to Yahweh, but he wouldn't accept Cain's. The rest of the story gets tragic, Cain gets jealous

because Yahweh favors Abel's offering over his and kills Abel in a fit of anger.

 

So why wouldn't Yahweh accept what Cain gave unconditionally? Why weren't the fruits of the earth

as acceptable as a slain lamb? Christians will no doubt say that the lamb was a foreshadowing of

Christ, but to me it still makes no sense.

 

What's everyone's thoughts?

 

I always wondered that as well, and didn't keep up with Christian commentary much, but stumbled across the Books of Adam and Eve, which I believe were written in 1st cent AD or something. Nevertheless, I read outside the Bible, and since the OT is dated only 5th-6th century BC, I find it applicable to study of Judaism, Christianity.

 

Anyway, there is much more detail about that situation in those books, you may have to skim through to get to it. They are pretty lengthy. Here's the link to both books. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/fbe/index.htm#section_000, http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/fbe/index.htm#section_001

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was a xtian, I was taught that the reason why God didn't accept Cain's sacrifice is because God has laid out a proper way of worshiping him and if you don't worship him properly, that means you're just doing it for selfish reasons and aren't worshiping God correctly because he says so. This was one of the verses they used to justify why it's a big deal for us to worship God with singing instead of musical instruments because obviously anybody who worships God the wrong way will go out and murder people who disagree with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was one of the verses they used to justify why it's a big deal for us to worship God with singing instead of musical instruments because obviously anybody who worships God the wrong way will go out and murder people who disagree with them.

 

That's why I pointed those scriptures out, because it's a little different view than the traditional.

 

6 Meanwhile Satan came to Cain in the figure of a man of the field, and said to him, "Behold Adam and Eve have taken counsel together about the marriage of you two; and they have agreed to marry Abel's sister to thee, and thy sister to him.

 

7 "But if it was not that I love thee, I would not have told thee this thing. Yet if thou wilt take my advice, and hearken to me, I will bring: thee on thy wedding day beautiful robes, gold and silver in plenty, and my relations will attend thee."

 

8 Then Cain said with joy, "Where are thy relations?"

 

9 And Satan answered, "My relations are in a garden in the north, whither I once meant to bring thy father Adam; but he would not accept my offer.

 

10 "But thou, if thou wilt receive my words and if thou wilt come unto me after thy wedding, thou shalt rest from the misery in which thou art; and thou shalt rest and be better off than thy father Adam."

 

11 At these words of Satan Cain opened his ears, and leant towards his speech.

 

12 And he did not remain in the field, but he went to Eve, his mother, and beat her, and cursed her, and said to her, "Why are ye about taking my sister to wed her to my brother? Am I dead""

 

13 His mother, however, quieted him, and sent him to the field where be had been.

 

14 Then when Adam came, she told him of what Cain had done.

 

15 But Adam grieved and held his peace, and said not a word.

 

16 Then on the morrow Adam said unto Cain his son, "Take of thy sheep, young and good, and offer them up unto thy God; and I will speak to thy brother, to make unto his God an offering of corn."

 

17 They both hearkened to their father Adam, and they

 

p. 57

 

took their offerings, and offered them up on the mountain by the altar.

 

18 But Cain behaved haughtily towards his brother, and thrust him from the altar, and would not let him offer up his gift upon the altar; but he offered his own upon it, with a proud heart, full of guile, and fraud.

 

19 But as for Abel, he set up stones that were near at hand, and upon that, he offered up his gift with a heart humble and free from guile.

 

20 Cain was then standing by the altar on which he had offered up his gift; and he cried unto God to accept his offering; but God did not accept it from him; neither did a divine fire come down to consume his offering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because God is a Shit, I tell you!

 

 

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. (The God Delusion)

 

But Richard, why don’t you stop beating about the bush and tell us what you really think of the Biblical god? He continues:

 

Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror. A naif blessed with the perspective of innocence has a clearer perception. Winston Churchill’s son Randolph somehow contrived to remain ignorant of scripture until Evelyn Waugh and a brother officer, in a vain attempt to keep Churchill quiet when they were posted together during the war, bet him he couldn’t read the entire Bible in a fortnight: ‘Unhappily it has not had the result we hoped. He has never read any of it before and is hideously excited; keeps reading quotations aloud “I say I bet you didn’t know this came in the Bible . . . ” or merely slapping his side & chortling “God, isn’t God a shit!”‘ Thomas Jefferson — better read — was of a similar opinion: ‘The Christian God is a being of terrific character - cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.’

 

http://www.deeshaa.org/2007/01/28/dawkins-the-god-delusion/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some commentators make a big deal out of the fact that chapter three of Genesis says that god cursed the ground. Since Cain's sacrifice was "of the ground" some commentators say that Cain had the audacity to bring to god a sacrifice from that which was cursed.

 

Would this ground be, like, the earth that god created? Wouldn't that mean that he made a mistake in creating something cursed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey all,

I got to thinking of the story of Cain and Abel, how they both offered Yahweh the best of what they

had. Cain offered the best from his garden, Abel one of the lambs of his flock. Abel's offering was

pleasing to Yahweh, but he wouldn't accept Cain's. The rest of the story gets tragic, Cain gets jealous

because Yahweh favors Abel's offering over his and kills Abel in a fit of anger.

 

So why wouldn't Yahweh accept what Cain gave unconditionally? Why weren't the fruits of the earth

as acceptable as a slain lamb? Christians will no doubt say that the lamb was a foreshadowing of

Christ, but to me it still makes no sense.

 

What's everyone's thoughts?

 

Garden products don't create the right aroma.

God likes the aroma of burnt sacrifice, specifically animals and some grains(Exo 29).

Gen 8:20-21

And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because God is a Shit, I tell you!

 

 

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. (The God Delusion)

 

But Richard, why don’t you stop beating about the bush and tell us what you really think of the Biblical god? He continues:

 

Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror. A naif blessed with the perspective of innocence has a clearer perception. Winston Churchill’s son Randolph somehow contrived to remain ignorant of scripture until Evelyn Waugh and a brother officer, in a vain attempt to keep Churchill quiet when they were posted together during the war, bet him he couldn’t read the entire Bible in a fortnight: ‘Unhappily it has not had the result we hoped. He has never read any of it before and is hideously excited; keeps reading quotations aloud “I say I bet you didn’t know this came in the Bible . . . ” or merely slapping his side & chortling “God, isn’t God a shit!”‘ Thomas Jefferson — better read — was of a similar opinion: ‘The Christian God is a being of terrific character - cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.’

 

http://www.deeshaa.org/2007/01/28/dawkins-the-god-delusion/

 

Agreed but in the end Christians will just make excuses of why it is ok to do all those acts (because God can do no wrong), but if it is was someone of another religion or God or leader they would condone it faster than anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would this ground be, like, the earth that god created? Wouldn't that mean that he made a mistake in creating something cursed?

 

No. It would mean that god originally created the ground (earth) good and then, later, cursed it. That would be like me making a clay sculpture just the way I wanted it and then, for some reason, marred it somewhat.

 

YoYo,

 

It would seem as though Satan was involved if the books I posted earlier were correct.

 

I've read the Book of Adam and Eve before. Quite a fun read, actually. But I am curious as to why you would consider this book at all as anything that could have anything "correct" in it. Also, since it was written most likely around the first century AD then that would only go to show that it was most likely influenced by those more "modern" ideas that the serpent in Genesis was the devil. The more "ancient" concept was not that the serpent was the devil. Nothing in the entire Old Testament indicates that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was the devil. It is not until New Testament times that we see this correlation being made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read the Book of Adam and Eve before. Quite a fun read, actually. But I am curious as to why you would consider this book at all as anything that could have anything "correct" in it. Also, since it was written most likely around the first century AD then that would only go to show that it was most likely influenced by those more "modern" ideas that the serpent in Genesis was the devil. The more "ancient" concept was not that the serpent was the devil. Nothing in the entire Old Testament indicates that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was the devil. It is not until New Testament times that we see this correlation being made.

 

 

Why would it not be correct? I stated earlier of the time frame it was written. I am aware of that. I read a study once about smoking cigarettes. It was in light of chewing tobacco, or dip. The statistics of people that smoked and had ailments from smoking versus the same for chewing tobacco's or dip. The chewers had far less ailments, and the death percentage was less; the smokers had much more ailments, and the death percentage was higher. All percentages were related to the specific form of tobacco use, and coordinating ailments. Anyway, the conclusion was that when it came down to life or death for smokers, chewing tobacco was an alternative, from these surveyed doctors.

 

That's the way I look at these scriptures. Some fill in gray areas for me as a believer in God. Why would I not consider them, the whole OT is only 6-7 hundred years older, right? Maybe this was written later, from the original, and the original did not survive. What if, this scripture was really orally passed down, wrote thousands of years ago, and we one day found the original? Tested it's dating, and it ended up being however many thousands of years old. The point is we don't know that, the author is unknown, it was not written in Greek, from what I thought. So, why not, if it helps me see a different picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize firstly, because some may feel offended by what I'm about to say. But, I can't help myself as a thought was pinging within my depraved mind while reading the posts. This thread needs alittle humor, anyway...

 

God wouldn't accept the salad because he was desiring a "tossed salad" from his worshipers. That's why literalist christians have brown noses. :assshake:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read the Book of Adam and Eve before. Quite a fun read, actually. But I am curious as to why you would consider this book at all as anything that could have anything "correct" in it. Also, since it was written most likely around the first century AD then that would only go to show that it was most likely influenced by those more "modern" ideas that the serpent in Genesis was the devil. The more "ancient" concept was not that the serpent was the devil. Nothing in the entire Old Testament indicates that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was the devil. It is not until New Testament times that we see this correlation being made.

 

 

Why would it not be correct? I stated earlier of the time frame it was written. I am aware of that. I read a study once about smoking cigarettes. It was in light of chewing tobacco, or dip. The statistics of people that smoked and had ailments from smoking versus the same for chewing tobacco's or dip. The chewers had far less ailments, and the death percentage was less; the smokers had much more ailments, and the death percentage was higher. All percentages were related to the specific form of tobacco use, and coordinating ailments. Anyway, the conclusion was that when it came down to life or death for smokers, chewing tobacco was an alternative, from these surveyed doctors.

 

That's the way I look at these scriptures. Some fill in gray areas for me as a believer in God. Why would I not consider them, the whole OT is only 6-7 hundred years older, right? Maybe this was written later, from the original, and the original did not survive. What if, this scripture was really orally passed down, wrote thousands of years ago, and we one day found the original? Tested it's dating, and it ended up being however many thousands of years old. The point is we don't know that, the author is unknown, it was not written in Greek, from what I thought. So, why not, if it helps me see a different picture.

 

Well it is actually pretty simple throw out all the "time frames" when it was written that part does not make it any less fabricated just shows how people did not grasp knowledge of the universe that is all. You laugh at other religions probably you know in your heart which ones are "cults" or "false" whatever it is. Now why do I bring that up? Back to the Bible, the Bible why it is false it is fabricated by men like you and me, you will respond "it was inspired by God" how did get that? Because it says so inside a 2000 year old book the only evidence of the stories happening.

 

But lets look here is of just the tip of the ice berg why it can not be correct?

 

1. All religions have some sort of "creation story"

2. Anybody can write a book and call it truth.

3. Snakes talk? Do you believe that honestly?

4. God knows the past/present and future why screw up and allow humanity to screw up when he knew it would happen.

5. Notice the OT and New Testament (we all know the rules change hence Jesus dies blah blah for our sins) but look at now what happens to the society with the new rules.

6. The Bible contradicts itself 363 times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is more proof Moses did not write the stories and that it was written many years after the Jews returned from their Babylonian exile. The rite of sacrifice was not given to Moses but one that crept into the story to justify sacrifice. This is also found in the book of Jeremiah when he preaches about the lying scribes. There is also the repeated them of someone claiming God prefers mercy and not sacrifice. After so many claims by the Christians that Jesus became that perfect sacrifice, their theology concerning him as a sacrifice is faulty based on scripture alone. Only a Jew or a Gentile trying to write like a Jew (Christian writers) would think of Jesus as a sacrifice based on the tradition of offering a sacrifice. The point is, Jesus was not a sacrifice. The story of Cain and Abel where Abel finds favor in the eyes of God for his sacrifice is written to approve of sacrifice after the fact. That is why their prophecy is so good, it is written after the fact. When considering the fact Jerusalem has been destroyed, ransacked, rebuilt and reinhabited numerous times throughout history, the prophecy of the Jews returning to their homeland after WWII is not so miraculous. The story of Genesis is a cut and paste story of many legends rolled into one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't you know its because god's a carnivore... he doesnt eat veges. :funny::lmao::woohoo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would it not be correct?

 

The point was not really about when it was written, but about what was believed at the time it was written. In other words, the Book of Adam and Eve was nothing more than a product of its time. If it were written a few hundred years earlier than the content (as far as the "beliefs" set forth) would most likely have been vastly different. The point was the the Old Testament, a much older document, did not view the serpent in the garden to be the devil or even necessarily evil. The Book of Adam and Eve uses what was the currently "approved" dogma of the day to tell its story. Again ... a product of its time. While the stories are quite interesting, this does not make them true (nor does it necessarily make them false). However, it really seems quite implausible that a 1st century AD document could detail the lives of two (sometimes on a day to day basis) that lived (supposedly) some 4,000 years earlier. So the credibility of the book is ruined right from the start and, as a result, it makes it even less likely that the book is conveying any truth about what really happened in the garden.

 

Oh, and I don't believe the Bible or its garden story anyway. So the Book of Adam and Eve simply becomes grand fiction for me personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, it really seems quite implausible that a 1st century AD document could detail the lives of two (sometimes on a day to day basis) that lived (supposedly) some 4,000 years earlier. So the credibility of the book is ruined right from the start and, as a result, it makes it even less likely that the book is conveying any truth about what really happened in the garden.

 

Oh, and I don't believe the Bible or its garden story anyway. So the Book of Adam and Eve simply becomes grand fiction for me personally.

 

Neither does a book writen in 500-600BC, that speaks of 3500-4000 years before. What's the difference?

 

This is the introduction from sacred texts about it, I will have to look around a bit more for more info. These books are also called another name, I think Conflicts of Adam and Eve, or something to that nature. Anyway, it is still around 2000years old, so I consider it :wink:

 

The version which we give here is the work of unknown Egyptians (the lack of historical allusion makes it impossible to date the writing). Parts of this version are found in the Talmud, the Koran, and elsewhere, showing what a vital rôle it played in the original literature of human wisdom. The Egyptian author first wrote in Arabic (which may be taken as the original manuscript) and that found its way farther south and was translated into Ethiopic. For the present English translation we are indebted to Dr. S. C. Malan, Vicar of Broadwindsor, who worked from the Ethiopic edition edited by Dr. E. Trumpp, Professor at the University of Munich. Dr. Trumpp had the advantage of the Arabic original, which makes our bridge over the gap of many centuries a direct one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.