Talk:Curse and mark of Cain
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
for very old discussions see /Archive001
Contents |
[edit] Religioustolerance.org
This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Cain as a Vampire
I heard a long time ago that "the mark" really meant that Cain was turned into a vampire. The furthest text I could find of this dates back to victorian times. The passage "opened its mouth and drunk the blood of thy brother" alongside that he was forced to wander the earth forever was supposed to be evidence that he craved blood and became immortal. It was also argued that since his children were never given dates on how long they lived that they must've lived forever too. Add to the fact that Enoch was destroyed with the deluge gave an explanation that "running water" was a weakness for those affected with vampirism.
Is this where the videogame character Kain originated?
+Here is a good link on that topic:[1]
Funnily enough it ties into Lilith, a widely accepted vampire.
I don't know about "Kain" but the whole vampire origin is the basis for the roleplaying game Vampire: The Masquerade. I've seen in a few unrelated books and novels myself as well. --Goblin 22 December 2005 08:39 (UTC)
Anyone care to make this addition? I'm feeling lazy.
[edit] YHWH -> God
I have gone through and changed the references to YHWH to God. It seems to me this is langauge is more plain and clear. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 07:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Other LDS scripture reference
The article currently states:
"Nevertheless, according to other parts of Smith's translation, the descendants of Cain were destroyed in the deluge. This has led some to understand that the black people referred to by Smith were not the same as modern African peoples.
Despite Smith's idea that the descendants of Cain did not "mix" with the descendants of Adam, one of Smith's associates later argued that Cain's descendants did indeed survive the flood via the wife of Ham, son of Noah. ..."
This is further clarified in Abraham Chapter 1, vss. 21-27 where it is not only stated that Ham's wife was of the lineage of Cain, but also preserves the denial of Priesthood to her descendants. --AustinHolloway 2 May 2006.
[edit] Depictions of Cain and the mark in popular culture
Something that might be of some use for the article is a section on uses of Cain in pop culture. I know that he was a fairly prominent side character in The Sandman and its companion series The Dreaming, and that in those series the mark was depicted as a ring on his forehead that was either darker or more pale than his skin (depending on the story). Just a thought. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else have any ideas on what the acctual mark was so far horns is the only explanation with a source
[edit] The Flood
Noah was not a descendant of Cain, so nobody alive today would be affected by the curse. Cains descendants would have perished in the Deluge. All this argument about the mark being black skin is ludicrous. 76.2.48.230 17:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- You are right, assuming that 1 - Cain's descendants inherited the curse; 2 - Noah's sons didn't marry any of Cain's progeny; and 3 - the mark or curse was black skin. None of which we know or don't know for certain. -Visorstuff 21:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mark of protection
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my reading of the passage about the "mark of Cain" (as opposed to the curse) suggests that it signifies God's protection...
"Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold."
i.e. whoever harms the carrier of the mark shall suffer the wrath of god to the power of seven. What am I missing? --Kick the cat 01:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Overview?
As I read this article, I get the strong impression that we are talking about specific US-centric religious interpretations of the story of Cain, which were used as support for racist practices over the last couple of centuries. Would this be a fair summary? If so, I would think it would be an improvement to put an overview in the leading paragraph to this effect.Trishm 09:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Other Points Of View Snooppy 09:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm new to wikipedia, so if I've made any mistakes posting please let me know. I always look for provocative angles that haven't been explored. I mean no disrespect to Mormonism. I simply want to understand human nature by understanding the historical truth about what happened. Of importance to me is the pressure that Mormonism was under from other religious and political sects and the possible compromises it had to make in order to appease descension within its own group. The following is what I got out of this discussion.
In terms of the support for racist practices, I'd like to know more. For example, was the curse used to support the racist practices we know about, such as slavery of blacks, AND practices that were more severe such as lynching?
I speculate that it doesn't support lynching, given that, it is said in the bible something to the effect that God would condemn anyone who hurt the person designated as the descendant of Cain.
It seems there are protective aspects of the curse that have been ingored in American politics out of fear, thus giving more power to ultra conservative hate groups. But this is mere speculation. In terms of racist practices, I would like to see this fully elaborated, and I'd like to know specifically if people, such as spiritual leaders, maybe even Brigham Young, did or didn't refer to the story of Cain to prevent such extreme things as the lynching of Blacks. Its bad enough that there was a spiritual compromise made in terms of applying the curse of Cain to blacks.
See, my greatest fear is that no one, including the spiritual leaders, uses the bible to save people, unless the people are in their "tribe". This is tribalism or sectarianism. Perhaps the same as we see in Iraq today (Overspeculation). The fear here is that Mormonism was at some point unspiritual, inhumane, hypocritical, because spiritual leaders were merely building up the ego of the tribe at the expense of another group of outsiders. In the spirit of honesty these fears must be addressed, so that all people can lay to rest the controversy.
Another aspect is a more anthropological view of the story of Cain as society perhaps modified its agriculture from producing only crop plants to producing animals for slaughter and consumption. Since this involves the distruction of something sacred (ie. the gift of conscious mammalian life), the new practice needs the blessing of God. The story of Cain thus serves to give praise and holiness to a new agricultural practice that would otherwise be looked upon with elitist derision by farmers who only grew crops. This is mere speculation. I further speculate that the story is trying to admonish those who had nomadic tendencies (Cain) and praising those who were sedentary (Abel). This is the basis of agrarian civilization (before factory farming of course). Again, this is mere speculation, but it rings true to me and I would like it to be expanded upon, by an anthropologist who understood th real history of the people at the time the story was written and would be able to provide sufficient evidence.
If Mormon leaders were only practicing tribalism (as I do fear!), then the problem with expounding any anthropological view, is that, since the new agricultural practice was already integrated into agrarian life, this anthropological angle really doesn't benefit anyone within the tribe in terms of buidling thier ego and/or casting aspersion on others outside the tribe. But to clarify this we need to ask; did the Mormon leaders preach an interpretation of Cain in which no one living was demonized? Snooppy 09:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
