Talk:Curse and mark of Cain
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 |
Curse and mark of Cain is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles. |
|
Project Judaism To-do:
|
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
for very old discussions see /Archive001
[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
look the the mark was not black its white thats what drove them north to the woods the thin hair wasnt good under the sun the white skin was getting burnt they had to think of new ways of life since life the way it was meant to be was denied to them. Think about the white race if you harm them isnt the punnishment 7 fold look at the atom bomb. come on poeple we are the descendents of cain and God allowed satan to put thoughts into our minds to create what weve created and make a home for the wicked and allow the evil to dwell amoung us.in the end of times the antichrist will come with the power to fool any who hear his words but he will be in the flesh as Jesus was when He was here so how do you think he will fool the whole world at once the satalites the t.v.s radios God made it hard on him but gave him a fighting chance with the descendents of Cain as his help mates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.47.81 (talk • contribs)
[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)
Adam and Eve were black with thick hair and strong genes sorry folks but im white and i can say i firmly believe this.Why would God make Adam or Eve white?? Look at how much time and money we spend on tanning ...why??? because if not we look pale, kinda sick, right?So think about, it in the bible someone was cursed and they were made to be as a leper with skin white as snow. Gods children are thge oppressed they are scattered throught ther nations and were sold into slavery and drivin from there holy land where there scriptures and tablets were beware of the false Jews and you know what beware of alot more then them my name is Steve and ill be more then glad to answer any ?s also prove im right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.47.81 (talk • contribs)
Good point about the mark of protection, therefore it would be illogical to use it to justify killing bearers of it. As for the part about Adam and Eve being dark black, I have been told that they were medium tone, because they had to have had the genes for all the skin tones. Of course that assumes they were the same color. It is possible that skin color genes were lost in the flood, as well as afterwards in prehistoric times. Rds865 (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2008 (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)
Abel was a shepherd, which is more nomadic than Cain's pre wandering farming. as far as people never using the Bible to save people of another tribe, consider the Christian Peacemakers. Don't make broad general statements, like people never do this or that. Rds865 (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Modern Christian reactions against racial interpretations
This section has a number of errors in it. Under the list of "black" individuals in the Bible Job is included.Neither Jewish lore or other lore I've ever uncovered lists Job as such. His location in the land of Uz is generally believed to be eastern Israel or Jordan. This should as least have a reference to where it came from. -- Black arrow 09:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Was Neanderthal Man the descendant of Cain, as suggested on www.CreationFoundation.co.uk? Putting aside the question of chronology for the moment, Neanderthal matches well with Cain -- with the author of "In Search of Neanderthal" suggesting that Neanderthal acquired his ferocious look because "Perhaps it provided a signal, even a threat to others" -- i.e. a clear "mark" warning them that here was a violent person, one best avoided.
It seems significant that DNA studies support this theory by showing Neanderthal to be an early and separate side branch rather than a direct ancestor of modern man -- a race that developed apart, on the fringes of the mainstream, just as Genesis suggests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.92.184 (talk • contribs)
- I doubt a discussion on www.CreationFoundation.co.uk is sufficient to show verifiably that this theory is notable within the community of creationism "experts". If notability can be established, it can go in the article. Without really looking into the issue, I kind of doubt whether this theory has yet passed the threshhold from crackpot theory to crackpot-theory-with-a-following, which is required for inclusion in Wikipedia. COGDEN 21:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
According to some scholars, some early interpretations of the Bible in Syriac Christianity combined the "curse" with the "mark", and interpreted the curse of Cain as black skin. (Goldenberg, p. 180). Relying on rabbinic texts, it is argued, the Syriacs interpreted a passage in the Book of Genesis 4:5 ("And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.") as implying that Cain underwent a permanent change in skin color. (Id.) The permanent change could have been leprous or white skin as well. It is peculiar that the the mitochondrial (first woman)Eve has been archeologically proven to be black african features[citation needed], but somehow during biblical times the first people were "white" and cursed to be "black". Maybe the mark of Cain was to be turned "white" in an environment where everyone else was "black". That too would make a person stand out. Sounds awfully speculative there towards the end. I'm dumping the last few sentences, but I think that second viewpoint should be addressed somehow. I just don't know enough on the subject to write it myself. Sameer Kale 01:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Non-racial interpretations
Don't we need some material on earlier interpretations? I think I read somewhere that some ancient or medieval text said the mark of Cain was a horn, and Beowulf includes a bunch of monsters as Cain's descendants. 74.227.173.139 16:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] mormon fundimentalists
The mormon fundimentalists are not I repeate not a small branch of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are not associated with the church in any shape,form,or fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.102.163.132 (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Which translation?
The verses from the Bible were just changed from the King James Version to a more-recent translation. We should decide on which translation should be used before someone reverts it back. — Val42 03:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A thought
Is it possible that the mark of Cain speaks about an emotion rather than a physical mark on the body or color of skin. Consider the fact that no one had ever been killed before. So the mark of Cain has to be any act of aggression, anger, frustration, jealousy, envy, deceit, corruption. Which prior to Cain actions had never been seen before. This transcends race for we are all "Cain until we are Able" literally. Thus any act other than a Godly act is an act of Cain, which is immediately recognized. KiNazir (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC) um, no, but if you have a source of a book or some people believing that then post it up there. Rds865 (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Racial Themes?
While it certainly has some relevance here, why is the bulk of this article concerned with the history of racial discrimination by religious groups? Perhaps that should be given an article on its own and only brielfy mentioned, with a link, in this article, which is about the mark of Cain and not the misunderstandings of that mark in regards to race. 74.193.145.25 (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Separate Mormonism and LDS sections
Is there any reason that these are two separate sections? The second (LDS) section seems to rely over strongly on quotations and largely covers the same information as the Mormon section. Im not very familiar with the subject and would prefer not to be the one to the merging, but I might if no one else is willing to do it. Black Platypus (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
