Abel Would Have Killed Cain

Rebuttal(numbered arguments continued from prior round) 6) CON: "God wanted animal sacrifices so that man's sin could be forgiven, but more importantly, he wanted to teach the value of life."This is asinine to the extreme. CON would either like you to believe that i) by killing living beings in their prime, you learn the value of life, or that ii) "killing for the glory of God" is the path to forgiveness and salvation. i) By this measure, Cain learned the value of life by killing Abel, and that what Cain did by killing Abel was righteous, as much so if not even more so than Abel's killing of animals for the glory of God. This is a moral contradiction in CON's argument, as Cain was condemned for such killing and not held to be righteous.ii) If there is such a thing as "killing for the glory of God", perhaps we can say that Osama bin Laden "killed for the glory of God" when he carried out the 9/11 attacks, or that we "killed for the glory of God" when we dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To describe such acts as "Biblically moral" would more than likely rub most people the wrong way. The morality that CON wants you to think the Bible is advocating is absurdly contradictory and can be used to justify the most heinous acts of genocide and terror. One need only look at Joshua's treatment of Canaan to see how such Biblical morality can justify what most people would consider to be the pinnacle of immorality:"...in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God." (Deuteronomy 20:17-18)"...they set fire to the city and burned it to the ground, along with everything in it..." (Joshua 6:24)The Jews of Joshua bear much resemblance to the pastoral Mongols of Genghis Khan, who were also genocidal, monotheistic, and marauding.What is Detestable is ArbitraryWhat were these "detestable things [the Canaanites] do in worshiping their gods?" We can look to Cain and Abel and a bit of Jewish history to get an answer. The Jews were pastoral. They managed livestock while in Egypt, and took what animals were under their care when they left (Exodus 12:31-32). Job's wealth was measured in the livestock he managed, not in the numbers of acres he tilled (Job 1:1-3). The Jews evidently favored meat and livestock over farming. And so, of course Cain the farmer is evil, and Abel the shepherder is good in the eyes of a Jewish God. This is all Biblical morality boils down to when it comes to the story of Cain and Abel - Cain was evil because he was a farmer. Such a standard of morality is absolutely arbitrary...the civilizations of Eden (i.e. the Tigris and Euphrates, Genesis 2:14) that grew crops in the Fertile Crescent would have considered the Jews and their marauding ways to be evil, a sentiment which manifested in the Jews' Babylonian captivity and enslavement (book of Daniel).Killing out of Love7) CON: "The Torah is actually rooted in love and compassion, not in commandments. What pleased God was not the fact that Abel killed animals, but that he recognized his own sinfulness and was willing to accept the consequences of his actions, sacrifice an animal, and repent of his ways..."Again, this is absolutely asinine. Perhaps dropping the a-bombs and flying airplanes into skyscrapers were "sacrifices" done as "acts of love and repentance". Or perhaps it is only when a Christian does it. Again, this "standard" of morality advocated by CON is totally arbitrary. Etc8) CON argues that "no matter what happens, Cain will always choose to do evil, not that God is preventing him from doing good."This fully supports that God created Cain to be evil, that God created evil at the very least in the instance of Cain. An omnibenevolent God does not create evil...this is a Biblical contradiction. 9) CON then concludes that "The Bible gives very good explanations as to why Abel would not have killed Cain based on his nature," yet CON does not describe what this nature is. The explanation is simple. Abel descended from Adam...Abel was sinful like Adam. Cain was a farmer, and farmers are "bad" to pastoral societies. So Cain was banished to the east (which happens to be where the Fertile Crescent was located).ConclusionCON does not contest that a) Abel was descended from Adam and thus was sinful like Adam, and that b) human nature is sinful and acquisitous according to the Bible. Abel managed flocks, and Jews were pastoral. Abel was thus "good" and Cain "evil". Such is the depth of Biblical morality.Had God looked upon Cain's offering with favor instead of Abel's, Abel's sinful nature would have compelled him to kill Cain. My argument holds.