Cain and his misery

The most amazing stories

Cain and his misery

Postby Cyrus1 » Thu Nov 12, 2009 2:29 pm

God never said that He does not respect Abel, on the contrary, God liked Abel's sacrifice. And to become a martyr is not disgraceful thing in God's eyes, otherwise why should we talk about Jesus Christ and His honor, although He was tortured to death on the cross so disrespectively? What happened, seems odd only to us humans, Bible readers, because we still have no proper understanding of what is what.

The fact that Cain was left alive, does not mean that God chose him because he ignored God's instructions. After all, God clearly rebuked Cain by saying:
10 The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground.11 Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. 12 When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth." (Quotation from New International Version at BibleGateway.com)

Cain’s words also is an evidence that his situation have worsened very much:

13 Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."
15 But the LORD said to him, "Not so [a] ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.


It is true that God did not allow anyone to kill Cain, but everything else is almost unbearable. Cain actually received a severe punishment.

Why God did not alow anyone to kill Cain? Remember Cain said: " whoever finds me will kill me." These are not words of repentance, but a voice of a legitimate criticism. So, why did Cain complained to God?

We now come to the new concept of sin. We have often said: this is a man worthy of punishment, so he deserves it. Here everything is taken for granted. But why no one never raised a question whether anyone is worthy to do a sin? So far we see that the person suffers for his previous sins and the one who harms him is making a sin at the moment. Thus the first sin resulted in the second sin, because after all, somebody or something had to punish the first sinner. Clearly then the second sinner will be harmed by the third sinner and so on. The very beginning of this is in some sort of the very first sin, apparently that in Adam's apple story.

The problem with the fratricide issue is that Abel was not worthy to be killed because he never committed any sin. If Cain had killed a sinful man, he would have done some sort of justice (even if it was to blame him as a sinner), and really Abel’s blood would lose ability to cry out to God from the groud, since it would be hypocritical. It comes as a conclusion that Abel had reason to invoke God, because he was killed unjustly. Cain's sin is never justified, which means that the first role in this action is taken no longer by Abel (because he is not “the first sinner”) as contrary to an ordinary situation where the first sinner is the pivotal point. But here we have some sort of scheme which is completely unusual.

In the ordinary situation, the central role is played by the first sinner, because after all, if he hadn’t sinned, the offender wouldn’t have sinned also. In the Genesis story the central figure is Cain. His sin is different from the usual sins because it is not justified, similarly, as the sins of those who crucified Jesus. This is a kind of "inverted” or “double" sin, which is addressing its justification not to another human being, but back to the perpetrator. It happens that Cain was the first sinner although it is also true that he acted really as the second sinner. His sin is so unique because he sinned against himself and punished himself also. This is why, in the Genesis story, the future injustice can no longer occur, because Cain already harmed himself. Hence nobody can legitimately hurt him, since the offender himself would get to the shoes of Cain and would suffer vengeance seven times over just as Cain got.

It is also clear, that a great injustice had occured, because the fate of Abel is like the sinners fate, although he was not a sinner. We see some kind of inverted patterns. Cain's sin arises from nowhere (he cannt be reagarded as “second” sinner) and can not lead anywhere, so Cain cannot be punished by death penalty. Cain's sin is some sort of "ad hoc" case. However, what I have written here, shouldn’t be understood that the injustice done to a saint will not be avenged, so anybody is free to do it. After all, God cursed Cain and his suffering is seven times higher. What is the spiritual manifestation of Cain’s suffering? From the viewpoint of the faith “as things are” it is vivid that Cain is clearly and manifestly not loved by God because otherwise he wouldn’t have done harm to himself for no reason.

The reason that God put a mark on Cain is not out of some pity but rather because he cared for the other people so that they would not get punishment seven times over because of kiling Cain. Therefore the boasting speech of Cain or his son Lamech should not be regarded as something happy what happened to them.
Cyrus1
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: Cain and his misery

Postby Alec » Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:48 pm

I do not envy poor Abel. Is there any way to evade such destiny? I mean should anybody be hurt that much just for some degenerate be taught a lesson?
Alec
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 11:34 am

Re: Cain and his misery

Postby Cyrus1 » Sun Sep 05, 2010 4:41 pm

“I do not envy poor Abel. Is there any way to evade such destiny? I mean should anybody be hurt that much just for some degenerate be taught a lesson?”


According to a Western approach, which is based on modern Christianity, we are all separate, independent characters. We've got separate lives, so you can easily tell who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell. Painful issue still is the question whether it may happen that we will be parted from our beloved ones? In a more assertive wing of this approach we hear talks that everyone will go where they deserve so even families will be divided. The family members who have faith and other members who are sinners are to go to separate places, i.e. they will be eternally separated from each other. Representatives from the mild wing of the Western approach are not so sure and they recommend praying for loved ones, but they do not guarantee anything, because every man is the master of his destiny. They only hope is that prayer will help the sinners to find true faith.

Under Oriental approach, everything is seen as one indivisible matter. Divisibility is not recognized. Here no one can get lost or separated from others. According to this approach, if it is necessary your human soul will live many lives, but eventually reach enlightenment. Therefore it is not possible that someone will eternally stay in Paradise while other in Hell because they all are indivisible parts of one matter. So either all people will stay in Hell or all of them will happen to get to Paradise. Under this approach a human being consists not only of certain body and certain consciousness but also everything else what happens around him is a part of him. For example if you look on a passer-by in the street, under Western approach you see another person who happened to get into your eyesight just by a coincidence and that means nothing to you. On contrary, under Oriental approach that passer-by is somehow connected with you, he is a part of you, he is one of the characters of your life “movie”. It is not a coincidence that he has got into your eyesight. So in this latter approach any onlooker is the only independent character and all the rest are enslaved to serve his needs. Therefore you are responsible for anything that happens to you. If a thief has robbed you, you do not blame him since he was taking special part in your “movie” in order to release you from money which for example was a menace for you since you were fully absorbed with thoughts about material things and forgot spiritual treasures.

Both approaches are not fully intact when taken separately. They must be combined because I believe that God is perfect director of the play. He may work on two separate storylines at the same time. For example child is killed through abortion not only to teach a lesson to his mother but also for some reasons connected only with the baby himself and the mother now is only a servant to his needs to be killed. If we take this combines approach we see that people are separate beings and at the same time they interact into each other “movies” or “worlds”. Therefore it is not only a mere coincidence that they meet each other but on the other hand no one of them is dominating this interaction. Both are equal masters and servants. This finding may help to answer many practical questions how to act and what sort of behavior is appropriate.

The conclusion might be that Abel was a servant in the story where the central role was taken by Cain. But it is true that Cain was also needed very much as a servant in the Abel’s story. Abel needed someone like Cain for his sacrifice to God resembling the one that Jesus did.
Cyrus1
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 5:10 pm


Return to Bible mysteries

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron