The Beauty of Catholicism

[Sniffles]

It's confusing, isn't it?
Is it "Caesar Jesus" or "Buddy Jesus" that we are dealing with most of the time?

I think you need to strike a balance between the two. If you focus too much on the former, then Christ becomes too distant. If you focus too much on the latter, then Christ's importance becomes trivalized.

It really does become annoying when people reference to Jesus as their best buddy and stuff. Although I still laugh at the one SNL skit where Will Ferrell kept saying how him and Jesus made a wonderful team and other competitors were complaining "Hey man, stop hogging Jesus." :yim_rolling_on_the_

Now that I think of it, though, I don't think Cain and Abel were about 'presenting your best.' Both gave their best offering. But Cain was resentful because God asked for something specific and he insisted on giving him something else -- something that did not involve blood.

It was my understanding that Cain didn't offer his best, while Abel did. Oh well.

[Totenkindly]

I think you need to strike a balance between the two. If you focus too much on the former, then Christ becomes too distant. If you focus too much on the latter, then Christ's importance becomes trivialized.

It's a fine line, isn't it?

It really does become annoying when people reference to Jesus as their best buddy and stuff. Although I still laugh at the one SNL skit where Will Ferrell kept saying how him and Jesus made a wonderful team and other competitors were complaining "Hey man, stop hogging Jesus."

Wish I had seen that. How funny. Farrell really found the right spot to press on there.

I see a lot of double-think too -- on one hand, people preach about God being King and try to have an authoritative approach to life, while at the same time they act like Jesus is their best friend and how they cry in his lap all the time. It doesn't feel like there is much consistency between the two when it's actually lived out. What would it really mean if Christ was a King?

And what would it really mean if he's your friend? My friends don't always put up with my crap, to be honest.

It was my understanding that Cain didn't offer his best, while Abel did. Oh well.

from biblegateway...

Genesis 4
2 Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

6 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."

8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." [d] And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.

9 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?"
"I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?"

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."

So the blood seemed to be the defining point.
And what is interesting is the contrast here: Abel sacrificed his animals to God, while Cain instead sacrificed his brother in secret. Both spilled blood, but for entirely different reasons. I never really thought much about how Cain refused to spill blood to cover his sinfulness... but eventually spilled blood as part of his sin, out of hate and resentment.

[Sniffles]

from biblegateway...

I don't see how my argument is refuted. Cain worked the land, while Abel hunted. I don't get the impression God looks more favorably upon the latter per se rather than the former.

Also many Jewish commentaries have noted that Cain didn't offer up the best fruits of his labour as the reason why God rejected it.

[Totenkindly]

I don't see how my argument is refuted. Cain worked the land, while Abel hunted. I don't get the impression God looks more favorably upon the latter per se rather than the former.

Also many Jewish commentaries have noted that Cain didn't offer up the best fruits of his labour as the reason why God rejected it.

Not being argumentative... but where is that in the text I quoted?

I don't see anything you say mentioned there, and I'm just going by what is in the text itself.

As contrast, the book of Malachi does talking explicitly about the heinous sin of offering God the little sickly diseased animals rather than the best animals they had.

[Sniffles]

Not being argumentative...

I'm not taking it as such.

but where is that in the text I quoted?

It's not directly mentioned, but it is somewhat implied by the basic notion that when you sacrifice something to God - you always offer your best.

I don't see where the text mentions that God rejected Cain simply because he sacrificed fruits.

As contrast, the book of Malachi does talking explicitly about the heinous sin of offering God the little sickly diseased animals rather than the best animals they had.

Well of course. Abel offered the best of the animals he had.

[Totenkindly]

I'm not taking it as such.

Good.

I don't see where the text mentions that God rejected Cain simply because he sacrificed fruits.

Okay. I read it as implicit, since it was the only stated difference.

(Just as if Cain had offered red, and Abel had offered blue, and God accepted blue. It really makes it sound like God did not want red. The quality of blue and red was not discussed at all nor seems to have a bearing. Does that make sense?)

Well of course. Abel offered the best of the animals he had.

I wonder if things would have been different if Abel had raised hamsters instead of lambs.

[Ivy]

I don't participate in lord-offs anymore but I have always thought that story had to do with whether you give to God from your first fruits or your leftovers. The passage implies that Abel offered his firstborn while Cain offered his excess.

[Sniffles]

Okay. I read it as implicit, since it was the only stated difference.

(Just as if Cain had offered red, and Abel had offered blue, and God accepted blue. It really makes it sound like God did not want red. The quality of blue and red was not discussed at all nor seems to have a bearing. Does that make sense?)

Sure. It looks like we're looking at the same text from different perspectives; which of course doesn't imply one view is wrong.

Reminds me of what the Catholic Church teaches in regards to private interpretation: contrary to popular view, the Church actually has nothing against it as long as the interpretation doesn't contradict Church doctrine.

Also what I stated to CC about the nature of universal truth and how it differs from objective truth. Objective truth applies to everybody and everything in the eaxct same manner; universal truth aplies to everybody and everything in their own unique manners. It's still ultimately the same truth, but with different twists and turns so to speak.

That's how it seems to appear in this situation, to me at least.

[Totenkindly]

I don't participate in lord-offs anymore

We'll make a spot for you if you want!

Then again, Ivy always does it better...


All right. So let's say that Cain was raising turtles, and Abel was growing poison ivy? And Cain gave God one of his turtles that was smaller and had a brownish-stain on one edge of its normally green shell but had a higher IQ than most of the other turtles and also gave off a pleasant fragrance when cooked -- except that he shelled and breaded and baked it instead in a rather bland parsley and pepper base, while Able picked the greenest and healthiest poison ivy he had but made a rather weak tea out of it that just did not taste good iced and put it in an expensive glass he had purchased from Macy's, although he knew that God always shopped at the Bon-Ton...

... and they both offered this to God...?

And God actually liked the taste of poison ivy and being god he would not die when he drank it, but he had an allergic reaction to the turtle despite enjoying the aroma of cooked shelled reptile meat?

Which one would God accept?

I admit, I am still a little hazy here.

[Sniffles]

We'll make a spot for you if you want!

Then again, Ivy always does it better...


All right. So let's say that Cain was raising turtles, and Abel was growing poison ivy? And Cain gave God one of his turtles that was smaller and had a brownish-stain on one edge of its normally green shell but had a higher IQ than most of the other turtles and also gave off a pleasant fragrance when cooked -- except that he shelled and breaded and baked it instead in a rather bland parsley and pepper base, while Able picked the greenest and healthiest poison ivy he had but made a rather weak tea out of it that just did not taste good iced and put it in an expensive glass he had purchased from Macy's, although he knew that God always shopped at the Bon-Ton...

... and they both offered this to God...?

And God actually liked the taste of poison ivy and being god he would not die when he drank it, but he had an allergic reaction to the turtle despite enjoying the aroma of cooked shelled reptile meat?

Which one would God accept?

I admit, I am still a little hazy here.

If that happened, I think the flood would've happened much much much earlier and God would've started over again.