Abel Would Have Killed Cain

RebuttalThe bulk of my opponent's argument quotes from the Bible. I will address his commentary directly.1) CON: "According to the Torah, animal sacrifices were made to atone for sin."What makes this "moral"? Why would God want man to destroy a part of His creation? Why would this please God?Without answers to such questions, my argument stands: "What makes the butchering of animals different on a moral basis from the butchering of humans in the eyes of God is unexplained." My conclusion also stands that the morality in the Bible is completely arbitrary.2) CON: "God tells Cain that if he does what is good then he will be accepted just as Abel, but Cain clearly refuses."How is it clear that Cain does what is evil? There were no commandments regarding murder. There was no guideline from God or anyone else to stipulate what was good and what was evil. Even Adam and Eve were at least told beforehand what exactly constituted Biblical morality - don't eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Cain was not told anything.Keep in mind that Abel killed animals to satiate God, resulting in "[the firstborn of his flock's] blood [crying] out to [God] from the ground" (Genesis 4:10)." Yet for some reason God found this pleasing. This reason is never explained in the Bible.If Abel did what was "right," then what is "right" is to destroy a part of God's creation to please God. Cain did the same, he destroyed a part of God's creation by killing Abel...yet this did not please God. Going by this logic, the morality in the Bible is contradictory.3) CON then uses 1 John 3:12 to support his argument, that "Cain had been doing what was evil, and his brother had been doing what was righteous."Here we run into the exact same problem. What was evil about Cain's actions? What was righteous about Abel's actions? 1 John 3:12 does not elaborate. Cain did not have the 10 commandments to instruct him on how to act. 4) CON's conclusion is extremely problematic: "It is divinely instituted that Abel belonged to the righteous bloodline of the Messiah." This is simply wrong:a) Abel belonged to the bloodline of Adam. It is through Adam that all of mankind is condemned to lead a life of sin. Like Adam, Abel was a sinner. Abel was not righteous, even if he strove for righteousness. Abel did not have any offspring, so it is impossible for Abel to have a bloodline from him.I must add that Cain also strove for righteousness...indeed it is Cain who first conceived of making offerings to God, not Abel, and not Adam or Eve.b) Christ was born via immaculate conception. He was not Joseph's son...he was the Son of God. c) In order for Abel to belong to the bloodline of Christ, Abel must have been born from Christ's offspring. This is an illogical and blasphemous assertion from CON on several levels, as it would require that Christ do what the Nephilim did in Genesis, i.e. procreate with humans, and would require Christ to have impregnated Eve to sire Abel, which is simply not Biblical.5) The most egregious point against CON's argumentation is his advocacy of predetermination, that "Cain was destined to commit this murder" and thereby had no choice in the matter. This goes against most Christian teachings of the necessity of free will to give man a choice to accept and love God. If all of life and existence is predetermined, then it stands that God, who created all of life and existence, created the good AND the evil, and thus caused evil to come into existence. If so, then God is good AND evil and caused Satan to "fall" as well. This contradicts Biblical morality, that God is omnibenevolent (http://www.openbible.info...).ConclusionMy opponent has made a good number of assertions, but there is no reasonable basis for most of them, and some (such as Abel and Christ being related) are just flat out wrong. The Bible does not explain what is good and evil in the time of Cain and Abel. It does not explain why killing animals is good, while killing people is not good. It does not explain why God did not look upon Cain with favor. It does not explain what is sinful about the act of acquisition, whether it be knowledge or otherwise.Many of CON's arguments highlight various contradictions in Biblical morality, such as 1) an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God creating evil, and that 2) predetermination means that man cannot help but to sin, and God knew this before he created man and thus wished to curse man because it is His will, which again contradicts the omnibenevolence of God.I thus conclude after addressing all of CON's arguments that CON's rebuttal is invalid, and my arguments from round #2 remain uncontested.