Posted this almost 3 years ago - have a re-read, wakakaka
*******
The oldest profession in the world: politics or prostitution?
By Raja Petra Kamarudin
Feb 14, 2022
But then is there any difference between the two professions? Most politicians are prostitutes, anyway. They will jump into any bed for the right price. And worse of all, they will screw the rakyat for a price — whether it is for cash, kind, power, or position.
They say prostitution is the oldest professional in the world. I am not too sure of that. I feel maybe politics is the oldest profession in the world. The Book of Genesis relates how God favoured Abel’s sacrifice over Cain’s, so Cain murdered Abel. This was basically politics, both competing for God’s favour.
They say prostitution is the oldest professional in the world. I am not too sure of that. I feel maybe politics is the oldest profession in the world. The Book of Genesis relates how God favoured Abel’s sacrifice over Cain’s, so Cain murdered Abel. This was basically politics, both competing for God’s favour.
*********
kt comments:
I don't disagree with RPK that "Most politicians are prostitutes, anyway. They will jump into any bed for the right price. And worse of all, they will screw the rakyat for a price — whether it is for cash, kind, power, or position."
But that is NOT my topic for this post. I am merely 'using' RPK's topic as a lead in to my subject, that related to RPK's 2 sentences: "The Book of Genesis relates how God favoured Abel’s sacrifice over Cain’s, so Cain murdered Abel. This was basically politics, both competing for God’s favour."
Firstly, let's investigate why God favoured Abel's sacrifice over Cain's. Following that, we will also recall what Cain said when God asked him the whereabouts of the murdered Abel.
OK, why God favoured Abel's sacrifice over that offered by farmer Cain? Let's examine the Good Book, Exodus Chapter 4, which (extracts only) says:
Exodus Chapter 4
1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.
KT note: the word 'knew' in the Bible means 'bonk' (have sex)
2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.
4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
6 And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
9 And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.
4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
6 And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
9 And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
These explanations were/are explanations by the 'faithful' whose favourite answer to why God, for example, allowed the Boxing Day tsunami to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people, has been "God works in mysterious ways" or "Who are we to question the divine intentions of Almighty God?".
Thailand - Victims of the Boxing Day tsunami included women and children
Basically bullsh*t excuses by the 'faithful' when no rational logical answer could be found to explain God's apparent immense cruelty and obvious lack of compassion or love in the killing of a person or hundreds of thousands of people.
If we examine Exodus Chapter 4 again there is nothing to show Cain was insincere or miserly in his offerings. The only difference between the two brothers' votive offerings was Abel's was meat of lamb (note the word 'fat' which occurs many many times in the Bible and in Greek mythology - I am not so sure about Sumerian mythology) whilst Farmer Cain's was of course vegetables.
Six years ago (26 March 2016) I posted Did Abraham sacrifice Ishmael or Isaac? where most of us educated in Christian schools (Catholic, Protestant, Methodist etc) are familiar with the story of how Abraham's absolute faith in his God even convinced him to sacrifice his ONE & ONLY son Isaac to his Almighty - yes, child sacrifice was fairly common in those ancient days in what is known today as the Middle-East.
At the very last second an angel appeared to stop Abraham from plunging the sacrificial knife into Isaac's bosom, then told him he was an ace in his faith to God, and asked him to sacrifice (in lieu of Isaac) a ram which happened to be conveniently entangled in a nearby bush.
In my post as linked above, I narrated scholarly work done by Jewish scholars (not Muslims, Christians, Hindu nor Buddhist, etc but Jews) in which I penned (just an extract):
Those Jewish scholars after examining the Old testament Bible concluded there was no angel interceding at the very last minute a la the US 7th Calvary to save the sacrifice of Isaac. Biblical scholars believe Abraham really did sembileh his one & only son.
[Note: And if the son was the 'only son' then it would have been Ishmael. But on the other hand it could well be Isaac]
Richard Elliott Friedman, a biblical scholar and the Ann & Jay Davis Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Georgia was one of at least two (Jewish) biblical authors who told us what had likely happened to Isaac (or Ishmael). The other Jewish biblical scholar was Tzemah Yoreh.
Putting aside for a moment the argument whether it was Ishmael or Isaac who was the human sacrifice, Friedman wrote his seven reasons why he believes Abraham killed his son at the sacrificial altar - I won't go into those reasons again; you have to read them yourself from the link I provided above, wakakaka.
Instead, I'll bring additional points by Bob Seidensticker, a Seattle blogger who explores intellectual arguments in favor of Christianity (Christian apologetics) from an atheist perspective. Bob wrote (extracts):
Richard Elliott Friedman, a biblical scholar and the Ann & Jay Davis Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Georgia was one of at least two (Jewish) biblical authors who told us what had likely happened to Isaac (or Ishmael). The other Jewish biblical scholar was Tzemah Yoreh.
Putting aside for a moment the argument whether it was Ishmael or Isaac who was the human sacrifice, Friedman wrote his seven reasons why he believes Abraham killed his son at the sacrificial altar - I won't go into those reasons again; you have to read them yourself from the link I provided above, wakakaka.
Instead, I'll bring additional points by Bob Seidensticker, a Seattle blogger who explores intellectual arguments in favor of Christianity (Christian apologetics) from an atheist perspective. Bob wrote (extracts):
The Abraham and Isaac story in Genesis 22 is often given to show God’s rejection of human sacrifice and, as it is in the Bible today, that may well have been the purpose. But, like a cheerful fairy tale that comes from a darker original, the Isaac story may not initially have had its happy ending.
The documentary hypothesis argues that the first five books of the Bible are an amalgam of four sources with differing agendas. Read the Abraham and Isaac chapter closely to see how it might have originally read (my source: The Bible with Sources Revealed by Richard Elliott Friedman, 65).
- Verses 11–15 have an angel stop Abraham and declare the whole thing a test, but where did the angel come from? God has no problem talking directly to Abraham to demand this inhuman sacrifice, and then an angel pops up from nowhere? That section looks like an addition.
- Verses 16–17 say, “Because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you.” Done what? If Isaac was not withheld, apparently he did get sacrificed.
- Abraham and Isaac set out together in verse 6, but verse 19 concludes the story with, “Then Abraham returned to his servants.” Alone.
There’s very little condemnation of child sacrifice in a story that rewards a man for his willingness to perform it.
But doesn’t the Bible reject human sacrifice?
Just to make clear that the Old Testament comes from a post-Bronze Age Mesopotamian culture, it tells us 37 times that God loves the pleasing aroma of burning flesh. And God has a big appetite: “The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock.” (Ex. 34:19). But God is reasonable. One verse later, he clarifies: “Redeem all your firstborn sons”—that is, sacrifice an animal instead.
We find a similar demand in Deuteronomy 18:10, “Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire.”
Human sacrifice in the Bible
The Bible acknowledges that sacrificing humans is powerful mojo, because that’s how the Moabite god Chemosh beat Israel’s God (2 Kings 3:27). The combined forces of Israel, Judah, and Edom were about to defeat Moab when the Moabite king sacrificed his son to Chemosh. The result: “There was an outburst of divine anger against Israel, so they broke off the attack and returned to their homeland.”
Though the Bible talks a good story as it rejects human sacrifice, it’s a sock puppet, and you can make it say just about whatever you want. You think God can’t say precisely the opposite of what he commanded before? Take a look:
- You must give me the firstborn of your sons (Ex. 22:29).
- But nothing that a person owns and devotes to the Lord—whether a human being or an animal or family land—may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the Lord. No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; they are to be put to death (Lev. 27:28–9).
Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD'S, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.
And the first person to greet him on his triumphant return was his daughter.
Do you think God was unable to prevent that (Jephthah's daughter from being the first to greet her father) from happening, if he (God) wanted?
Or God preferred the sweet aroma of burning flesh, like he did with the first born of Egyptians.
And that brings me to the point I want to make, God, as told in the Old Testament, likes the pleasing aroma of burning flesh (note: read up on King Josiah's human sacrifice to him). And we know the Old Testament is filled with numerous stories of animal and human sacrifice - yes, animal sacrifice was much more common than human sacrifice, but both occurred and were “pleasing to the Lord”.
King Josiah's human sacrifice to his God
That's precisely why God favoured Abel's offering of burning lamb (so full of fat). Unfortunately for Farmer Cain, God was a meat lover so his vegetarian offerings were by comparison to Abel's, plain pathetic.
And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake
In response to Noah's first act after leaving the ark - namely, to build an altar and offer animal sacrifices to God - God responded to Noah's offering favourably, smelling the pleasing or soothing aroma of the sacrifice and, apparently greatly pleased, thus he made a new commitment. This is the only time Scripture shows God explicitly smelling the aroma from a sacrifice, though that is the direct intention of many sacrifices described later in the Bible.
In Leviticus 1:9 (KJV) we are also reminded of God's fave dish:
But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.
(In plain English - You are to wash the internal organs and the legs with water, and the priest is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, a food offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord)
Poor Cain, if only he had reared cattle instead of plain vegetables, he wouldn't have murdered his brother out of jealousy.
All the above tragedy brings us to the 2nd point I want to make, that (as I wrote above) we will also recall what Cain said when God asked him the whereabouts of the murdered Abel:
9 And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
Am I my brother's keeper?
Am I my brother's keeper?
A very famous quotation or question mentioned frequently in the English language. But what is its significance to us Malaysians?
Chinese Malaysians have been asking that question since 1981, wakakaka!
The answer is simple. If you reverse the spelling, 'God' spells 'Dog'. Similarly, if you reversed the spelling of 'Devil' it is 'Lived'. It is all cock-eyed.
ReplyDelete