The story of Cain and Babel

Cain and Babel are the evil twins of the first portion of Genesis.
Their story follows on from the account of what happened in Eden, when Adam and Eve defied God’s will and seized hold of “the knowledge of good and evil”.
That is to say, they began making their own decisions, independently of God, about what was right and what was wrong.
In the stories that follow, we see how that works out in practice.

The story of Cain- Genesis ch4 vv1-8

Cain is annoyed with his younger brother Abel, because the offerings his brother makes are acceptable to the Lord, and his own offerings are not.
(“Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous”- 1 John ch3 v12)
The Lord tells Cain that his anger against Abel is misplaced, because the remedy lies in himself.
He just needs to turn to doing what is right.
He also warns Cain of the danger of Sin, the continuing desire to act against God’s will.
The state of Sin is lying in wait for him and wants to rule him, and will succeed unless he asserts himself against it and masters it.

The sequel, of course, is that Cain kills Abel.
The implication is that Sin has won the battle over Cain’s mind.
So the conclusion we can reach from this first experiment is that the human will, having detached itself from God’s will, is not strong enough to resist being mastered by the wrong kind of will.

The children of Cain

The murder of Abel shows the effect of the uncontrolled egotism of the individual.
In the following chapters, we see Cain’s legacy at work.
The Patriarch Lamech boasts that he has killed a young man who merely wounded him, and that he is able to exact vengeance to a level seventy-seven times greater than any injury.
This seems to be about the invention of metal weapons- at least his son, Tubal-Cain, is credited with being the first man to work in bronze and iron- ch5 vv19-24
So the family is now fully equipped for the achievement of “overkill”.

The end-result is that the earth becomes corrupt in the sight of God.
“The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continuously”- ch6 v5
But the most important symptom of this corruption is that the earth is filled with “violence” (HAMAS), when the individual will seeks to subdue other wills, as Cain subdued Abel- ch6 v11
This was, according to the account, God’s reason for wanting to clear the earth and start again.

The story of Babel- Genesis ch11 vv1-9

In the story of Babel, men are working together.
They are still, however, out of harmony with God’s will.
So they develop a collective ambition which disregards him.
Their intention is to “make a name for themselves”, and to build to a level rivalling heaven.
In both respects, they are encroaching upon God’s place.
And therefore God breaks them up, to prevent their ambitions from stretching any further.
The corporate will has replaced the clash of individual wills, but the corporate will may be just as capable of leading people astray.
Humanity in detachment from God has an unsustainable confidence in its own achievements.

The children of Babel

The ambition of Babel shows the effect of corporate pride.
The history of Babylon will have provided the name and the original model for this theme.
The power and the pride of Babylon become proverbial in the Old Testament because of the destruction of Jerusalem, which also makes Babylon the archetype and representative of human hostility towards Israel’s God.
Hence also Babylon’s place in Revelation as the source of idolatry and persecution.
So Revelation (ch18 v5) and Jeremiah (ch51 v9) take pleasure in pointing out that only her iniquities and her judgement have succeeded in reaching “as high as heaven”.

Cain against Babel

In one respect, Cain and Babel represent opposing tendencies.
The legacy of Cain is the assertion of the individual will, against other individual wills, which tends to promote individual violence.
The legacy of Babel is the assertion of the collective will, against other wills, which tends to promote corporate power.
The co-existence of the two gives us the perennial conflict between individualism and corporate authority.
This was the running theme of the television series, “The Prisoner”, the unceasing friction between the individual egotism of Number Six and the corporate egotism of the Village authorities.
The point of the confrontation in the final episode was to demonstrate how much they were two different versions of the same thing.

There is a sense, though, in which we need them both, in the current conditions of human life.
We need the power of authority to restrain the violence of Cain.
We need the energy of the individual to restrain the pride and power of Babel.
Without the resistance offered by Cain, the legacy of Babel would be free to develop into tyranny, an evil state of affairs in which there is nothing to prevent the strong from preying upon the weak, and all justice comes to an end.
Without the resistance offered by Babel, the legacy of Cain would be free to develop into anarchy, an evil state of affairs in which there is nothing to prevent the strong from preying upon the weak, and all justice comes to an end.

The kind of justice which depends on the precarious balance of two unjust forces will never be entirely secure.
The real necessity is that what happened in Eden should be reversed, to the extent of bringing human will back into harmony with God’s will and so ending both kinds of aggression.

Finding a solution to that problem is the task which takes up the rest of the Bible.

reply to post by DISRAELI

??
I learned it was Cain and ABEL.
Babel is another name for Babylon, where they built the tower of babel to get closer to God under the leadership of Nimrod.
Which led to god confusing mans language.
So was Babel founded by Abel?
I cannot find anything saying it was.

reply to post by OneManArmy

I see you have responded to the title without reading the thread.

DISRAELI
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

I see you have responded to the title without reading the thread.

But Cain is a mythological person and Babel is a place. How can they be evil twins?

Im responding to the first line in the thread. After seeing that statement I figured the rest wasnt worthy of my attention, maybe Im mistaken.

reply to post by OneManArmy

"Evil twins" was a little tongue in cheek, but if you actually read the thread you will see why I "paired" them together.
"I refuse to read it" disqualifies you from judging.

PS You must get used to the fact that some people on ATS have a sense of humour, and might get whimsical in their title choices.

DISRAELI
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

"Evil twins" was a little tongue in cheek, but if you actually read the thread you will see why I "paired" them together.
"I refuse to read it" disqualifies you from judging.

PS You must get used to the fact that some people on ATS have a sense of humour, and might get whimsical in their title choices.

edit on 8-12-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

*Realises thread is far too over his head, and so shuffles out the door hoping nobody noticed him*

reply to post by OneManArmy

I trust you at least read it over before coming to that conclusion.
And I think you underestimate your powers of comprehension.

DISRAELI
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

I trust you at least read it over before coming to that conclusion.
And I think you underestimate your powers of comprehension.

OK yes you are right. I did actually take time to finish reading your post after that comment.
It is an interesting take on the individualism vs collectivism dialectic.
My previous comments didnt do your OP justice and for that I apologise.
Am I right to summise that without the righteousness of Godliness in the minds of men, both individually and collectively then we are doomed to allow evil to flourish?
Hence them both being the same evil. And also explain the state of world affairs in these modern times.

This is an eternal conundrum, man will only inherit heaven on earth when he seeks to actually create heaven on earth.
The biggest barrier to collective good, is corruption and greed of individuals.
The older I get, the more corruption pervades society. Im at a loss as to how mankind is going to solve this problem.
I have thought about it for quite a long time, and the corruptibility of mankind is our biggest weakness.
My only answer is the restriction on the size of any power base. To decentralise power structures to the local level.
But inevitably, region will war with region for better conditions. The enitire history of mankind and the struggle for survival and greed would make "heaven on earth" a distant reality.
This is why Im anti NWO.
"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"

Once again, Im sorry for not taking your thread seriously. Its not as tongue in cheek as you say, its actually quite insightful.

OneManArmy
Am I right to summise that without the righteousness of Godliness in the minds of men, both individually and collectively then we are doomed to allow evil to flourish?
Hence them both being the same evil. And also explain the state of world affairs in these modern times.

yes, that strikes me as a good analysis

This is why Im anti NWO.
"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"

But of course there's also the other side of the coin.
We could relate anything we call "NWO" and "TPTB" to the "Babel" side of human nature, but the reaction against them itself pushes people towards the "Cain" aspect of things.
The "Freeman" movement, for example, is pure "Cain", people wanting their individual desires to override the established law and other people's property
The eternal precarious balance.

DISRAELI

The "Freeman" movement, for example, is pure "Cain", people wanting their individual desires to override the established law and other people's property

edit on 8-12-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

Im not sure mankind has the right to "own" land.

We are custodians of the land, not owners of it. The land owns us, and as a result we war over the more prosperous lands and areas with the best "resources" which we rape from the earth at the cost of the defeated and of wildlife.

I think mankind has to take a long hard look at our role on this home we call earth.
Before too long there wont be enough resources to sustain us. Thats when its going to get really nasty.
Call me an idealist, but the way things are right now, capitalism and "ownership" are the biggest drivers of greed and corruption.

We spend years trying to teach our kids to share, but then we do the complete opposite once we are old enough to earn money and take ownership of "stuff".

The sooner we realise we dont have the right of ownership over anything, then the sooner we might be able to live cooperatively with true community for the benefit of community, which is then enjoyed by the individuals in any community. And the sooner we might stop extincting species from our shared home.

Everything belongs to the earth, it is the earth that sustains us, the earth is our only home, when we realise this, maybe things can improve. I wont hold my breath though.

reply to post by OneManArmy

But if X is holding property, whether it be a house he is living in, or land from which he gets his living, and the individual Y tries to take it away from him, is not Y behaving like Cain?

You start with the premise "Nobody has the right to control the earth", but that takes you only part of the way.
You can get from there to the premise "Therefore X has no right to control a portion of the earth".
But you cannot get logically from there to the premise "Therefore Y is entitled to control it instead".

If Y takes control of property on the rationale that no-one is entitled to have control of property, he is being inconsistent and non-rational.

DISRAELI
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

But if X is holding property, whether it be a house he is living in, or land from which he gets his living, and the individual Y tries to take it away from him, is not Y behaving like Cain?

You start with the premise "Nobody has the right to control the earth", but that takes you only part of the way.
You can get from there to the premise "Therefore X has no right to control a portion of the earth".
But you cannot get logically from there to the premise "Therefore Y is entitled to control it instead".

If Y takes control of property on the rationale that no-one is entitled to have control of property, he is being inconsistent and non-rational.

Yes I know, its a complicated premise.

If land is being tended properly then Y has no right to expel X.
The land is shared equally, in the spirit of brotherhood, our goal is to tend the land, not erect our flags and buildings and to claim them for our families.
To expel X for doing his job as custodian of the land, then Y is acting like Cain.
But X should be willing to offer shelter and food to Y when Y is in need. And Y should then in turn do his fair share of tending the land to help support himself and X. People should be free to move into any region and do his share of the tending(work) to earn his place in the community.
Might should never entitle anyone to expel anyone else.
The only centralised power structures should only be for utility management and maintenance and law within a region.
Mankind should come together to set up a universal set of laws that are just. But no world court nor world government should be necessary. There should be strict controls on how the power structures evolve to limit corruption and power.
The role of "government" should only be to govern the utilities by way of organising the communities to put in the labour required to maintain them, the people free from materialistic ownership, should be able to govern themselves.
Any breakers of the law can be dealt within local small courts.

Its completely foreign to the modern world and as such is going to be very complicated to achieve.
I dont think it is actually achievable, due to the nature of mankind.

I just see where materialism has led us, and seek to do the opposite. Which may well be a mistake in itself.

reply to post by OneManArmy

A further complication is that the "Cain" and "Babel" impulses are so similar that people can easily switch from one role to another.
If policing structures are set up to try to restrain the activities of Cain, you can bet your life that some Cain-minded individual or individuals will try to seize control of them and exploit them, which is one way that "Babel" develops.
On the other hand, any rebellion against the powers of Babel may well end up being exploited by people who want to create new Babels of their own. The Communist regimes began as rebellions.

So I would agree that the ideal balance is not achievable in the current state of mankind.
That's why, in Biblical terms, we end up with the Christian solution which involves a change to the current state of mankind.

DISRAELI
reply to post by OneManArmy

 

A further complication is that the "Cain" and "Babel" impulses are so similar that people can easily switch from one role to another.
If policing structures are set up to try to restrain the activities of Cain, you can bet your life that some Cain-minded individual or individuals will try to seize control of them and exploit them, which is one way that "Babel" develops.
On the other hand, any rebellion against the powers of Babel may well end up being exploited by people who want to create new Babels of their own. The Communist regimes began as rebellions.

So I would agree that the ideal balance is not achievable in the current state of mankind.
That's why, in Biblical terms, we end up with the Christian solution which involves a change to the current state of mankind.

Yes I agree, Im not trying to promote communism. Its flawed.
But I just ponder on ways to limit power structures from becoming too powerful and restrict them from usurping power over others. Therein lies the problem. "Power corrupts".

You also cannot enforce a belief system on free willed people that dont want it.
You have to persuade them of the truth, not force it on them. Yet another BIG problem.

reply to post by OneManArmy

I think it would be a very slow and often frustrating process.
Two steps forward, and at least one step back.

reply to post by DISRAELI


"That is to say, they began making their own decisions, independently of God, about what was right and what was wrong. "
So are you saying there was no free will until the apple was eaten?

reply to post by ZeussusZ

Sorry, this follows on from my thread on "the Tree of Knowledge", in which I argue that "knowing good and evil" actually meant deciding for themselves what was good and evil, instead of accepting God's judgement.
Deciding for themselves that the tree was "good to eat" instead of something to ba avoided was a symbol of that change.
I'm going to have to refer you to that thread, The tree of what knowledge? for a more detailed explanation of the argument.
I was hoping here to move on to the next stage of the story.

reply to post by DISRAELI


great post

DISRAELI
reply to post by ZeussusZ

 

Sorry, this follows on from my thread on "the Tree of Knowledge", in which I argue that "knowing good and evil" actually meant deciding for themselves what was good and evil, instead of accepting God's judgement.
Deciding for themselves that the tree was "good to eat" instead of something to ba avoided was a symbol of that change.
I'm going to have to refer you to that thread, The tree of what knowledge? for a more detailed explanation of the argument.
I was hoping here to move on to the next stage of the story.

Im not so sure that the metaphor of the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" equates to "choosing for ourselves what is right and what is wrong".
The clue in the name suggests to me it is of knowing good and evil, hence Adam and Eves "shame" of nakedness, and the covering up with fig leaves.
Being made aware of something doesnt equate as having the choice of what is evil and what isnt.
I think it is more knowing what is good and what is evil, and then doing evil regardless(in Cains case and The Tower of Babel).
Its almost like a metaphoric "loss of innocence/ignorance". Willful disobedience isnt the same as ignorant mistakes.
Blissful ignorance is simply not being aware that what we are doing is wrong, how can the blissfully ignorant be held responsible for their actions. Hence children not being tried as adults in a court of law.
Or Jesus' words regarding the Romans that tortured him to death..."Forgive them for they know not what they do"

EDIT: Also God deceived Adam and Eve by saying that to eat from the tree would cause certain death. Its worthy noting that, God told a lie. He also asked Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac to prove his allegiance to God, and just when he was about to do so, God said not to, seems a bit harsh dont you think to cause such mental torture for Gods own pride.
Surely this exercise in mental torture would be unnecessary for an all knowing God.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Excellent thread again DIS.

...that perhaps also illustrates the hard and not so fast mechanism of karmic debt that keeps wheeling until the cycle is broken. 'Original sin'...the nuts and bolts, lived version of the knowledge of the mechanism of karma. (or, the tree really held fruit that was not actually meant to be eaten by A&E, and/or both).

Å99