August 26, 2012

"Althouse and her followers being expelled from the Garden of Bloggen to the Land of HuffPo."

Writes Meade, after I say "So let me slink away and contemplate my own offenses against The Creator." Here's the illustration he sends us to:


(Enlarge.)

What an amazing image! It's an 1880 painting called "Cain flying before Jehovah's Curse," by Fernand Cormon. It's at the Musée d'Orsay (in Paris), so I guess I've seen it, but I don't remember it.
Despite his moment of glory as a Beaux-Arts professor..., [Cormon] was almost forgotten by 1924 when he was run over by a taxi outside his studio, and is barely remembered today save as the teacher of more illustrious pupils.
Here's the relevant passage in the Bible, Genesis 4:16: "And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden." I don't know where he got all those other people going with him or why they looks like cave-folk. I'm guessing Cormon was stoking our doubts — making it look especially bizarre to make us think about how bizarre the Biblical account really is.

87 comments:

Methadras said...

Man, talk about needed the invention of the wheel right there.

The reason they look like cave people is that most likely those are his children or grandchildren. Cain lived to be 900 years old according to the bible. They look like cave people because frankly, they were.

Methadras said...

By the way, adam and eve did have other children after they were expelled from the garden.

m stone said...

Resembles a tough Chicago crowd.

Rabel said...

You're looking pretty good, if a little haggard.

My gaydar suggests that's Titus in the left foreground with the sharpened pole.

Maguro said...

Resembles a tough Chicago crowd.

More like a Madison crowd: Overwhelmingly white.

ndspinelli said...

"A vacation from my problems." Bob Wiley

Actually, Romney is on vacation @ Bob Wiley's fav lake.

Gabriel Hanna said...

There's many people in the painting because Genesis contains independent and conflicting accounts of creation, and generations of people have interpreted them in different ways in order to reconcile them.

For example, Genesis 1, the "let there be light" account, has people, both male and female, created last after animals.. Genesis 2, the "forbidden fruit" account, has Adam created, then animals, then Eve, who gives birth to Cain and Abel.

The usual interpretation is that incest was okay back then, people being all shiny and new, and that just because only a few people are named doesn't mean there weren't others.

bagoh20 said...

Now that there is some art. You can't ignore it. You have to think about it. It creates questions, and the artist doesn't come to mind until long down the road.

Is there anything in the bible about God giving man the wheel, cause if I was I God, I would definitely take credit for that one.

Hey, Bago likes some art. He must be back on his meds.

Rabel said...

Awesome comment/connection by Meade. How did he do that? An encyclopedic knowledge of 19th century French art he can whip out at a moments notice?

Titus said...

Who's the woman in the middle with the tits?

tits.

The Crack Emcee said...

I don't know where he got all those other people going with him or why they looks like cave-folk.

Probably because that's who we got these beliefs from - illiterate desert dwellers. The amazing thing is their staying power:

Here we are - with computers, germ theory, and probes on Mars - and this legend, of a man in the sky who let his son be murdered because we were born bad, hangs on.

It's actually pretty amazing,...

Titus said...

I went to a barbecue last night and it was 2 guys who are fags and 11 women.

I got to feel all the women's tits and I snuggled with them, putting my head on them. I felt so safe. And they felt safe being felt up by a fag. It was a win win all around.

It is one of the perks of being a fag, feeling up perky women's tits. And everyone was enjoying it and laughing. I even got to a cup a couple under their bras.

PaulV said...

Meade choose a painting that would include the Meadhouse minions. including the dissenters of the liberal persuasions.

The Crack Emcee said...

Titus,

It is one of the perks of being a fag, feeling up perky women's tits. And everyone was enjoying it and laughing. I even got to a cup a couple under their bras.

Careful, Titus, that's how it starts,...

sydney said...

I assumed it was Adam and Eve and their children leaving the Garden of Eden. Never would have connected it with Cain. I thought they had already been expelled by the time Cain and Abel were born. But maybe it was just the Garden of Eden, and not Eden itself they were expelled from. That would make sense as a legend, wouldn't it? If you lived in a hostile desert environment, you could tell yourself somewhere around here is a lush garden where all your needs are met, but we can't find it or go there because we were kicked out.

Quaestor said...

I love how shiloh's snarks are both puerile and cacographic. Or do I grant too much?

Notice how Cain and his followers (if Methadras has his way they all must be either siblings or the get of incest) are all a bit beetle-browed, squat-kneed and stoop-shouldered, rather like the typical 19th century concept of the Neanderthal? Evidently Cormon was also trying to work in a little Darwinism as well.

harrogate said...

This painting is funner to look at if you imagine the music (and corresponding mood) to one of the Ocean's movies playing in the background.

"Third. You shook Sinatra's hand; you should know better, Cain."

rhhardin said...

God threw figures of speech out of the garden.

exiledonmainst said...

That wild 'n crazy barbarque petered out (so to speak) damn early, since Titus was posting here at midnight. Or perhaps he was running to the computer in between feeling tits.

Titus said...

I am watching Fox News-I don't think I have ever watched before-the women on the network have amazing tits. The weather slut is amazing, her tits are like pushed up to her chin.

Titus said...

The barbecue was 7-11.

I am a lady, I wasn't going to go all the way.

ricpic said...

Cain: Stop yer bithchin' and moanin'. I know it's a long schlep from Coney to the subway but once we get on the N line we can relax and ride it all the way back to our penthouse in the sky -eye-eye-eye.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

There are several 'theories' about the meaning of the allegories in Genesis. One does fall in line with the picture.

The idea is that Cain and Abel represent the two main ways that humans were living in prehistoric times. The two modes of living were not always compatible and probably often resulted in actual warfare and genocide.

I think that most things in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, are remnants of memories, stories and allegories that have been told for thousands of years and should not be taken litterally. Probably,stories told since the Neanderthal and Cro-magnon times. Kind of like a game of 'gossip'. Every time the story gets passed along, something changes a bit...but the story still retains a kernel of the original.

Alex said...

Here we are - with computers, germ theory, and probes on Mars

None of which invented by Crack. You know Crack I'm an engineer and I say FUCK YOU.

harrogate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
harrogate said...

Besides, Cain got what he deserved for being a vegetarian and for thinking God was one, too.

Astro said...

...Similar to the question asked by the Spencer Tracy character in 'Inherit the Wind'. In this clip, starting at 5:40.
Another creation, over in the next county

ricpic said...

The Genesis story is actually a huge leap ahead, a quantum leap, relative to other cro-magnon and neanderthal ways, or ancient ways of looking at man. For one thing in Genesis it is established that "man" is mankind, both sexes, male and female. So right away equality is established. Eve doesn't belong to Adam.

Primitive Thinker said...

Why does everyone assume that God was such a Chatty Cathy? Not everything that ever happened back then is in the Bible I'm sure. He could've created a bunch more people besides Adam and Eve all over the place and decided not to talk about it much.

Nick Carter M. said...

We still have these beliefs, Crack, because they are real and do tangible things in people's lives.

I am one of them who has uncovered the secret power of God contained within the Gospels of Jesus Christ.

Nick Carter M. said...

Genesis does make a lot of sense if you study it.

You have to be pretty arrogant to believe you know what was going on back then.

Other, secular, sources from those ages confirm that human beings were living hundreds and sometimes thousands of years.

You can't just read the Bible and understand it - you have to study it.

God is real.

Titus said...

I was raised catholic, had first communion and confirmation went to CCD every Wednesday night.

I don't know shit about anything in the bible.

My parents go to church every week and they don't know shit about the bible either.

buwaya said...

Abel was the farmer, not Cain.
Cain was the shepherd.

And its not stated that Abel was a vegetarian - he was just a farmer.

buwaya said...

Abel was the farmer, not Cain.
Cain was the shepherd.

And its not stated that Abel was a vegetarian - he was just a farmer.

Bender said...

how bizarre the Biblical account really is

It's not bizarre, it's sophisticated, it's complex and multi-layered.

harrogate said...

buwaya, you whiff on multiple levels.


Of *course* it's not stated that either is a vegetarian. Good Lord. (pun intended!)

BTW, what did Cain offer that was deemed second-rate? what did Abel offer that was valued?

ndspinelli said...

Titus, Catholics leave the Bible to the "professionals." We minions were expected to genuflect and give money..every week! Did you attend St. John the Baptist?

buwaya said...

Well, you did say Cain was the vegetarian. Perfectly OK to make these errors while rushing posts.

bgates said...

illiterate desert dwellers

Those illiterates sure wrote a lot of books.

edutcher said...

Somehow, I remembered the Land of Nod as a kind of capital punishment, back in the days before lethal injection when Ol' Sparky meted out justice.

Quaestor said...

I love how shiloh's snarks are both puerile and cacographic. Or do I grant too much?

Possibly distinction without difference.

Notice how Cain and his followers (if Methadras has his way they all must be either siblings or the get of incest) are all a bit beetle-browed, squat-kneed and stoop-shouldered, rather like the typical 19th century concept of the Neanderthal? Evidently Cormon was also trying to work in a little Darwinism as well.

Well, maybe that was part of the punishment.

Titus said...

Spinelli, I did attend St. John's. I went to St. John's grade school.

When I lived there it was a little church.

Now it is fucking huge. They tripled the size of the church...the school is the same shit hole when I attended.

My parents best friend who owned Endres Manufacturing gave tons of money to that church. He died. He made piers. His daughter is some diva arts, Madison Civic Center whore. She lives in a mansion in Middleton and doesn't work.

My parents still go there but they some of the priests don't speak english very well and they don't understand anything they are saying. But "bless their hearts" they are there every week.

Bender said...

Catholics leave the Bible to the "professionals."

No. Wrong. Incorrect. As Dei Verbum instructs, "Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful."

For those who want to know what the Church really teaches, see, for example,

Dei Verbum, the the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (1965), and
Verbum Domini, the Apostolic Exhortation on the Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church (2010).

Titus said...

Do you guys know that I got straight A's throughout my entire school career? Even in Physical Education.

I studied constantly.

I was considered a major fucking freak.

Molly said...

Source of Steinbeck's title "East of Eden".

ndspinelli said...

I believe you got all A's..but I wouldn't call them "straight."

St. Johns has to be one of the biggest Catholic Churches in Dane County.

ndspinelli said...

The murder of Father Kunz of St. Michael's Church in nearby Dane, Wi. remains unsolved. It occurred in 1998.

Pogo said...

That painting reminds me of our family summer vacation in 1968.

deborah said...

An interesting picture. The man leading. Would that be Adam, so much older than Eve? Could it be God or Darwin?

And Eve, Cain, and Abel are carried.

deborah said...

Borne out.

rehajm said...

I had not heard of Cormon or Cain. My first thought was the exaggerated muscular figures were some sort of neo-Baroque style for those times. The Musee d"Orsay suggests the figures are the result of the period newness of prehistory- '...at a time when Paleolithic rock paintings were just being discovered...'

Interesting what influences...

Smilin' Jack said...

I'm guessing Cormon was stoking our doubts — making it look especially bizarre to make us think about how bizarre the Biblical account really is.

Yeah, because that's certainly the most bizarre thing in the Bible. Everything else makes perfect sense.

Mel Plontz said...

Perhaps almost forgotten in some company, he was clearly totally forgotten by the cabbie. Ouch!

Titus said...

How do women feel being cummed on?

As a fag, my perception is that women dislike cum.

Do women hate cum?

Chip Ahoy said...

You talk about the bible as if you don't know how literature comes about. You speak comically almost as if an author sat down and wrote a story and submitted it for publishing.

You silly nuckleheads just gave an idea for a satire.

harrogate said...

Abel brought a lamb, if I recall. Cain brought his offering from the ground. So the idea that Cain was veggie-riffic and Abel of the slaughter, was not the product of a rushed post.

"God got mad at Cain because Cain thought God was a vegetarian." As it were.

Roger J. said...

a very interesting painting, along with (most) of the commentary. thanks for posting it.

Roger J. said...

Oh--and you didnt create that wheel--someone else did. (sorry but it was a high hanging curve ball)

The Godfather said...

Just a couple of clarifications of the Bible stories:

"Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain was a tiller of the ground." Gen. 4:2.

The Cain and Abel story (Gen 4) comes AFTER Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden of Eden (Gen 3:23-24).

Apparently, all humans were vegetarians until after the Flood when they became meat eaters: God says to Noah, "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything." Gen 9:3.

What the Bible says about Cain after the murder of Abel is that he settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden (Gen 4:16), that he had a wife (unnamed) with whom he had a son Enoch, and Cain built a city, which he called Enoch after his son. Gen 4:17.

There's nothing in the Bible like this painting. I know that there are various folk tales and legends about Cain, and I assume the painting must be based on some such source, but I'm not aware of any tale that seems anything like the painting. I hoped someone else would have some information about that.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Abel brought a lamb, if I recall. Cain brought his offering from the ground. So the idea that Cain was veggie-riffic and Abel of the slaughter, was not the product of a rushed post.

It has been eons since I've thought about or studied in Bible class. However, I vaguely remember that Abel brought the very best offering. The sweetest and best of his herd. While Cain didn't bring his BEST and therefore the Lord was looking with disfavor upon Cain. Even if his best were not the better of the offerings, that God would take that into consideration as long as he brought his actual BEST to be sacrificed.

Or...don't try to fuck with God. He knows when you are lying and cheating.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@DBQ:However, I vaguely remember that Abel brought the very best offering. The sweetest and best of his herd. While Cain didn't bring his BEST and therefore the Lord was looking with disfavor upon Cain.

God forbid you look it up if you don't remember it. It's not like the Bible isn't freely available in many languages or anything, or searchable electronic texts on the Internet. The plain text simply does not say what you say it does.

"Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast."

Nowhere does it say that either of them brought their best, or didn't. It says simply that God liked one offering better than the other.

William said...

I count three women in the entourage, and only one of them is pretty. She looks delicate and civilized and from a different gene pool than the men. The men all look like finalists in some WWF competition. One prety girl and a half dozen men supercharged with testosterone. One senses that there will not be much rest in the Land of Nod.

Revenant said...

Notice how Cain and his followers [are] rather like the typical 19th century concept of the Neanderthal? Evidently Cormon was also trying to work in a little Darwinism as well.

Attempting to match fossils of earlier species to Old Testament stories is a hallmark of creationism, not Darwinism. :)

harrogate said...

"Nowhere does it say that either of them brought their best, or didn't. It says simply that God liked one offering better than the other."

Bazinga.

Paddy O said...

Nowhere does it say that either of them brought their best, or didn't. It says simply that God liked one offering better than the other.

The Bible doesn't say it, but just about every sermon I've ever heard on the subject says just what DBQ said. It's the standard explanation for why God chose one over the other.

It's funny how much the actual text leaves out that makes up the common understanding of the text.

The Godfather said...

I second what Gabriel Hanna said. There's nothing SAID in the Bible about why Cain's offering was not accepted, while Abel's was. You can certainly speculate all over the place, but look what God said to Cain: "Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; it's desire is for you, but you must master it." Gen 4:6-7.

Cain didn't need to be jealous of his kid brother. He hadn't been written off by God. He'd been given a road map for his spiritual journey. He ignored what God had told him and acted in accordance with his own worst impulses -- just like his parents.

Just like us.

That's the point of the story. It IS all about us.

Revenant said...

The Bible doesn't say it, but just about every sermon I've ever heard on the subject says just what DBQ said. It's the standard explanation for why God chose one over the other.

Popular isn't the same thing as true. The only stated difference between the sacrifices is that Abel offered animal sacrifices and Cain offered plants. That Cain offered a sub-par sacrifice isn't supported by the text.

deborah said...

That Cain brought 'some of the fruits of the land,' while Abel brought fat portions (desirable) of the first-born (desirable) of his flock pre-figures Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his first born and Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

(I'm an atheist.)

The Crack Emcee said...

Looking at the painting again, and considering the Mormon belief my kind was cursed with the mark of Cain, shouldn't all those guys be black?

Man, the next four years are going to be fun,...

Nick Carter M.,

We still have these beliefs, Crack, because they are real and do tangible things in people's lives.

Sorry, Nick, but beliefs aren't real - that's why they're called beliefs.

Bender,

[The Biblical account is] not bizarre, it's sophisticated, it's complex and multi-layered.

Naw, it's just old, giving them enough time to attempt closing the loopholes before actual knowledge came into being. I'm especially fond of the "We're All Sinners" trick - kind of hard to slip out of that one, huh?

bgates,

Those illiterates sure wrote a lot of books.

Wow - a wilder display of ignorance I've rarely seen.

You might want to find another religion if you don't understand the one you're in.

Dust Bunny Queen said...


God forbid you look it up if you don't remember it. It's not like the Bible isn't freely available in many languages or anything, or searchable electronic texts on the Internet. The plain text simply does not say what you say it does.


So? It is what I 'vaguely remembered' being taught in Catechism. Those are MY memories and if you don't like it you can fuck off.

It isn't like it really matters either. I don't have enough curiosity about a fictional/allegorical story to care enough to 'look it up'.

ANY allegory is what you make of it. Seriously...the Bible is not an actual literal account of events. If you want to think it is...well....that's your prerogative.

The Godfather said...

Dust Bunny Queen said: "It isn't like it really matters either. I don't have enough curiosity about a fictional/allegorical story to care enough to 'look it up'."

This is part of the seminal story of the Judeao/Christian Tradition -- which is in turn part of the American tradition, whatever your religious preference. Such a lack of curiosity is sad.

Why don't you try to learn a little about the Bible. With an open mind. It could change your life.

Bender said...

Nowhere does it say that either of them brought their best, or didn't. It says simply that God liked one offering better than the other.

One of the basic rules of biblical exegesis is to not read anything in isolation, but to read passages in the context of the whole of scripture.

What scripture does say, later, is that God has no need for either grain/fruit sacrifices or animal sacrifices. A few examples are --

You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifice of God is a contrite heart: A broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. (Psalm 51:16-17 (the Miserere))

Sacrifice and offering you do not want; but ears open to obedience you gave me. Holocausts and sin-offerings you do not require. (Psalm 40:6)

Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams. For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. (1 Sam 15:22-23

For it is love/mercy that I desire, not sacrifice, and knowledge of God rather than holocausts. (Hosea 6:6)

So, considering the above, and others like them saying that the Almighty God has no need for sacrifices and no want for sacrifices made merely for the sake of sacrificing -- that the only acceptable sacrifice to God is the sacrifice of the human heart, that is, sacrificial love for God and one another (agape) -- how should we interpret the respective sacrifices of Cain and Abel?

Abel's sacrifice was made with complete love for God, while Cain interiorly sought to hold something back; even before the sacrifice was made, the seeds of jealously and resentment were sown in Cain's heart.

Abel gave freely to the Lord, Cain gave conditionally, Cain wanted and expected praise in return, and when he didn't get it, he was angry about it.

Bender said...

Just like us.
That's the point of the story. It IS all about us.


This is very key. The opening chapters of Genesis, while historical in a certain sense, are NOT intended to be a history book, much less a science book.

Rather, what is presented here -- in a sophisticated, complex and multi-layered way -- are existential and ontological lessons, that is, Genesis contains fundamental revelation about the nature of mankind, both as an individual human person and in society and, very importantly, the human person as a created being and not a god unto himself with the power to decree what is true and what is false, what is good and what is bad. And the imagery that is described in Genesis is reflected over and over and over again throughout human history.

The opening chapters of Genesis contain the deepest of philosophy, theology, and sociology if one is only willing to see it. Or they can simply be a collection of contradictory stories by backward superstitious peoples, and it is merely coincidence that they happen to describe quite well human behavior throughout the millennia.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Bender:One of the basic rules of biblical exegesis is to not read anything in isolation, but to read passages in the context of the whole of scripture.

So the parts of Bible written later have the ability to travel back in time to change the meaning of the parts written earlier. Only religious documents work this way.

If you actually believe the traditions about what parts were written when, Psalms was written at least a thousand years after Genesis. So even Moses's generation, who supposedly had the Torah, didn't understand it properly because King David hadn't come along to tell them what it meant in a psalm.

Imagine your reaction, if someone tried to tell you that you couldn't understand Barack Obama's speeches in the first year of his Presidency without reading his speeches given in the fourth year. You'd think that person was around the bend, or you'd think it was special pleading to try to explain something away.

What religious people do to the Bible is what progressives do to the Constitution. They take something written long ago that meant one thing to the people at that time, and try to stretch it into a meaning they desire to read into it now.

Bender said...

We also might ask ourselves:
Why does the story go from the Fall of Man -- Adam and Eve setting themselves in opposition to God, severing their relationship Him, such that they could no longer remain the Garden -- and proceed directly to the story of Cain killing Abel?

Where is the historical story of the childhood of Cain and Abel (and what significance is there to Cain being the first human to be born?)?

Did they, in fact, have a childhood? Or were they born adults? The scripture doesn't speak about their childhood, so they must have been born adults, right? Of course, that is rather absurd. Scripture does not, and is not intended to, include every detail of human history. Hence, not only does it not speak of the childhood of Cain and Abel, neither does it describe where Cain's wife came from, or where the people that Cain are afraid of came from. That is because where they came from is not relevant to the point that the author (ultimately, God) wants to teach here.

But, back to the question, why does the story proceed directly from the first sin of mankind to brother murdering brother?

Maybe that little literary device there is the answer itself -- it is a small step from opposing God (who is Love and Truth), from killing one's relationship with God, to killing one another.

The account of the Fall and subsequent murder of Abel in Genesis not only shows how sin affects the sinner, it demonstrates how sin is intensely social. With sin, which is a violation against truth and love, not only are proper relationships between mankind and God severed, but, as we see with Adam turning against Eve, and Cain killing Abel, proper relationships between human beings themselves are estranged, so that, instead of living a life of love and truth toward others, mankind has lived a life of selfish self-gratification and exploitation of others; instead of harmony, there is discord.

When you turn against He who is Life itself, it must necessarily end in death.

deborah said...

Were any books of the Bible fudged to correspond to past books?

The Crack Emcee said...

deborah,

Were any books of the Bible fudged to correspond to past books?

The Book Of Mormon was fudged to correspond to,...

Oh Hell, it doesn't correspond to anything.

Yes, folks:

This is it for THE NEXT FOUR YEARS,...

Bender said...

So the parts of Bible written later have the ability to travel back in time to change the meaning of the parts written earlier.

Only from an unsophisticated and overly fundamentalist/literalist point of view.

The Word of God is eternal. The Word transcends time. The Word was One and whole at the first moment of creation, even if the Word was revealed slowly and progressively over time throughout Salvation History. Thus, we interpret scripture as a unified whole, reading the Old Testament in light of Jesus Christ, and reading the New Testament in the light of the Old. Or, as Augustine put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.

And, by the way, actually, it is believed, with some extra-bibilical support, that the opening parts of Genesis (pre-Abraham) were written at the time of the Babylonian captivity (in what is present-day Iraq).

Bender said...

Imagine your reaction, if someone tried to tell you that you couldn't understand Barack Obama's speeches in the first year of his Presidency without reading his speeches given in the fourth year.

Imagine reading Obama's 2008 campaign speeches in isolation and coming to one interpretation, an interpretation that would permit a certain law professor blogger to justify voting for him even though many people were saying that the interpretations of Obama as being an agent of hope were grievously wrong.

Now imagine reading Obama's 2008 campaign speeches in the context of his presidency. All of that talk about hope and change suddenly takes on a darker tone. Did Obama change? Did his words change? Or do candidate Obama's words, properly interpreted in the light of his words as president, portray candidate Obama to have been the same dishonest and despotic thug that President Obama is?

Yes, to know the true Obama, to know what Obama truly meant in 2008, to accurately and rightly interpret his words in the 2008 presidential campaign, we must read them in the light of his later presidency. If that certain professor/blogger had interpreted candidate Obama's words in the light of President Obama's words, thus having a more accurate understanding of him, she might not have voted for him.

To ever read something in isolation is a plan for gross misunderstanding.

leslyn said...

"Althouse and her followers...." That's a catchy line. Especially in a Biblical context.

wyo sis said...

It isn't specifically stated, but you get the idea that Cain's offering was specifically made the way it was as a sort of passive aggressive act.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Bender:Thus, we interpret scripture as a unified whole, reading the Old Testament in light of Jesus Christ, and reading the New Testament in the light of the Old. Or, as Augustine put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.

And they in turn were superseded by the Quran and the Book of Mormon, and everything you thought you knew from those books now has to be reinterpreted, right?

Oh, I see, you get to pick and choose which scriptures are valid. The ones that say what you agree with.

The Godfather said...

The order in which the books of the Old Testament were written is a complex question, on which scholars disagree. There is reason to believe, though, that the more or less final editing of the first four books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers) probably took place during the early post-exilic period (after 538 BCE). By that time, many of the prophetic and historical books had been written, at least in their early forms. (The Genesis 1 creation story may have been one of the last parts of the Old Testament to be written.) However, much of the underlying material of the four books was much older, and may have first been collected three or four centuries before that, from still earlier traditions.

To a large extent the editors (redactors) took the materials that they had and stitched them together without worrying about inconsistencies and repetition. That's why you have a different order of creation in Genesis 1 than in Genesis 2, and conflicting numbers of each kind of animal aboard Noah's ark (there were different versions of the stories in different traditions).

It's certainly fair to interpret Genesis stories in light of other writings, but you can also take the Genesis stories on their own and learn from them. I personally think it is more instructive to consider what Cain did when his sacrifice was found by God not to be pleasing than to wonder why it was not pleasing. But you can find riches in these scriptures by asking different questions.

But please don't discount a potential source of enlightenment because it seems so un-modern and hard to understand.

Methadras said...

Titus said...

How do women feel being cummed on?

As a fag, my perception is that women dislike cum.

Do women hate cum?


Not in porn they don't.

Bender said...

I see, you get to pick and choose which scriptures are valid. The ones that say what you agree with.

No. In Jesus Christ, who is the Word Incarnate, scripture is made complete. Being God, He is the fullness of revelation. In Him is all that needs to be said.

Accordingly, the canon of scripture was closed upon the end of the Apostolic Age, which was long before a not-very-bright and not particularly successful merchant named Mohammed, after hearing the stories of various travellers passing through Arabia, tried to pass off a piss-poor imitation of "revelations" filled with various heresies and pagan slop, but were conveniently self-serving and self-promoting.

Nevertheless, there are apparently still some who pick and choose to follow crap like The Da Vinci Code and think they can then go and snark about proper biblical exegesis when they don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Bender said...

without worrying about inconsistencies and repetition

And if the authors were, in fact, intending to write strict and literal history, you would think that even backwards ancients like them would have noticed the glaringly obvious differences and omissions, e.g. the two different accounts of the creation of man, and the "where did Cain's wife come from?" question.

Of course, if it is not intended to be strict history or strict science, then those apparent differences and inconsistencies and omissions disappear because the underlying truth that is meant to be revealed and taught about man and about God is consistent throughout.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Bender:the underlying truth that is meant to be revealed and taught about man and about God is consistent throughout.

Then the Lord said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged. Take the whole army with you, and go up and attack Ai. For I have delivered into your hands the king of Ai, his people, his city and his land. You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king, except that you may carry off their plunder and livestock for yourselves. Set an ambush behind the city"....When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the wilderness where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. Twelve thousand men and women fell that day—all the people of Ai. For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed[a] all who lived in Ai. But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the Lord had instructed Joshua."

The highest philosophy and the eternal unchanging love of God for man, except when He commands genocide.

Have you read this book? Because I have. You know perfectly well I can cite instances of God commanding all sorts of abominable things. You have given yourself a license to believe the nice parts of the Bible and explain away the nasty parts.

I think it is much more honest to accept that it is a collection of many writings compiled over many centuries by many people, and it's not reasonable to say that when you squint between the lines all parts of it are saying the same thing.

Especially when there are hundreds of sects of Christianity alone, all working from the same book, all claiming its so obvious what it says. If it were all consistent, that wouldn't be true.

The Crack Emcee said...

Bender,

Yes, to know the true Obama, to know what Obama truly meant in 2008, to accurately and rightly interpret his words in the 2008 presidential campaign, we must read them in the light of his later presidency.

So how do you explain those of us - especially the non-believing types - who knew EXACTLY what he was up to in 2008 and before?

Look, if you're going to attempt engaging in faulty bullshit mind games to sell the Bible - and pretty much all of your type do - then, please, TRY to be ready for the obvious holes in your "logic".

We want to be entertained,...