you're reading...

Cain, Abel and Mother’s “Tough Love”

The age-old lament of dear, old Mother.

“You two better shake hands and make up.”

“You know you love your brother.”

What to do when things are “well-beyond shaking hands and making up“.

When Mother recognizes that the situation is way, way beyond mere sibling rivalry, what then is her moral responsibility. When the fighting won’t get the fight out of them, and neither side will build bridges or meet in the middle, what then? Compound this with a Mother’s afore-knowledge that one son is homicidal, and then what should be expected of her?

Separate them both (a house divided).

“You two just need to play nice” are the words any Mother would speak, and the people lament “Why can’t we just get along?”.

If you still haven’t figured it out, this metaphor speaks directly to partisan politics and contemporary policy both foreign and domestic.

Across the board there are vile and vain attempts to meld that which was never meant to be together.

To cross-breed capitalism and socialism, to temporarily suspend water in oil, or worse, to mix the reactant and catalyst, the matter and anti-matter; to apply the pressure required to reach critical mass. To merge Christian, Hebrew and Mohammedan into the nice, neat packet of the secular humanist.

How convenient.

It is essentially a situation where Cain will have his way, “or the good brother be murdered”. .

My thoughts run through the impassioned yet planned crime of Cain, and the demon-possessed and premeditated act of Judas with second-thoughts coming too late, or to an unrepentant and unabashed (and unforgiven, by most Americans) Benedict Arnold.

What kind of leadership is in Mother when her basic approach is to “get used to it” ? To “let boys be boys”.  To practice Parisian politics en laissez faire fashion.

Would Eve have been ambivalent toward Abel in another age, say today? With her relations with evil, who knows. Would she ignore their fighting and allow one to kill the other?

Probably not.  It typifies a Mother’s instinct to protect her child no matter what, or does it?

The mindset changes when the topic turns on the modern mom and to abortion or stem cell harvest; children be damned, it’s all about mom or the living sick man who could benefit from killing the child.  They worship life, avarice and the things of this earth…mammon and putting self above the innocent unborn.

They would risk life and limb to save a butterfly (again, coveting what is of this earth), yet kill a child to save one of their own living dead (the misery, the horror – they are dead, inside – walking, soul-less…dead).

With Eve as metaphor for modern man, she just might choose as she chose in the garden: sacrifice paradise for self-indulgence. To choose knowledge over life, to sell the soul – to choose Cain over Abel; avarice and lust for life over Abel. Choosing the evil that is Cain over the good son, Abel – that remnant and product of a paradise so recently lost.

The moral dilemma for me is would a Father make such a choice were he to know that in so doing evil would champion over good, and for eternity. If the situation were reversed, would I as a Father stand by and bear witness to Abel defend himself (and that which his life represents) and in that process destroy Cain?

Eve must have known through Mother’s instinct of the rivalry between the two, just as Christ knew, through Fatherly omniscience, of the intent of Iscariot. Eve gets a little lee-way on this one (she may have only suspected, but could not know for sure of what could happen between the brothers). It is my hunch she would try and stop the act, or more likely simply prolong the inevitable by separating them (however, they will only get along – so long – before evil will again, inevitably, encroach).

And where is the prayer for the enemy – Judas I wonder?

I believe it more a lament than prayer – “better that he were never born”; a sorrowful sadness. It is no absolute that his fate is eternal damnation, but it is as fair a conclusion as the fate of the Nazi at Nuremberg. His fate seems sealed by the evidence of his crime and the response of our ultimate judge.

When “leaders” turn a callous eye to conditions boiling under their watchful eye, they are as guilty as the one who took the silver, or stoned the brother. But where is the guilt in the one betrayed? Abel’s only transgress was to be born in original sin, and he is defined as good.

In Christ we know there was no evil; He is the essence of good.


There is a betrayal of our constitution that has slowly transpired over the course of the last century.

The betrayal is culminating before our very eyes today in real and manifest form, taking shape through a compendium of manipulators and alleged law-breakers.  A political machine has risen from the dark depths of the underground and now runs a nation as if it were a concentration camp, separating the undesirables from the liberal’s flock. (Syria announced today it wants to open diplomatic relations with America – no big surprise when viewing the photo of Madame Pelosi in the above link – shopping at the marketplace in Syria).

If Eve were given the chance (or Adam) to circumvent what transpired, one would have to believe that a parent would be responsible and intervene by their very nature. One, to teach the boys a lesson, and then as parental instinct to “save” their children from that awful fate.

But Adam and Eve were imperfect, and had a track record for poor choices.

But there is another example where a parent has the opportunity to intervene, and does not.

If evil descends on your only child, would the perfect parent choose to yield to evil to save the Son?

God might have removed Christ from the cross, but He did not.

He might have snatched Him up from Hades (yes, there were other “religions” with a concept of Hell in spite of a popularized myth that it belongs to Christianity alone; just like a secular humanist to try and do away with the unpleasant, such as Republicans, the concept of hell, or unborn babies); but He does not deliver Him from Satan’s grip.

But He did not acquiesce to evil either.  Just as Judas expires at the end of his rope, evil is foresaken, God-foresaken, by Christ’s refusing to “just get along” with Satan during those three days in Hell.

God demonstrates an ultimate faith in His own Son; it is a faith that for each of us should be so strong.

Evil was patently rejected through the faith of a Father in His Son, and the faith of a Son in His Father.


Ignored by the dullard Democrats in Congress and the White House, at least one half of the U.S. population has flatly rejected the policies that are taking place and led by accused criminals, abortionists, tax evaders and individuals highly suspect as having an active role in the devastating mortgage crisis and subsequent attempts to destroy capitalism, and with it the very engine that powers freedom in a democratic-republic.

Choices are being made, and they do not represent choices for good.


But Obama does not represent the Father of this Nation.  If anything he seems to practice the choice of the abortion of a nation, the abandonment of its core principles, the complete and total annihilation of its very soul and its dedication to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

His mantel is not in league with the founding fathers, but rather those dedicated to its destruction rather than its birth.

He destroys life, stifles liberty and relegates happiness to the trash heap of moral relativism and the European pipe dream of Utopia on the commune.

Choices can be so very difficult for we mere mortals, but usually so, so obvious.

Ask any kid and he can tell you the difference between right and wrong, between good and evil.

A Mother might argue that Cain and Abel, or Christ and Satan should just “get along”. It is an extreme analogy, but these are extreme days.

It is unconscionable to think of Mary telling Jesus to “just give in” to Satan’s temptations, or from my perspective a President telling us to simply give up on all we have worked for to build this nation as free market capitalists.

For weeks upon weeks now I have awaited the proverbial “shot heard round the world“.

With events such as those unfolding on Wall Street and the Chicago mercantile the voice of discontent is beginning to rise.

It may not be the volley that ignited the transformation of colonies into a Nation, but we may very well be witnessing the ramrod being drawn from the musket.

Revolution can be defined through comparisons to rapid decomposition, to sudden and extreme change, and even to critical mass.

We all know of the uncertainty this sort of change brings.  The rationalist says it is inevitable and a good thing, the conservative moralist the essence of destructive evil, and the pragmatist that necessary evil that will lead to a true liberation.

Whatever transpires in the very near future, we MUST remember the caution put forth by Ben Franklin during his trial by fire, during their trial by revolution:

We must all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall each hang separately.

About precipii

An aged anti-hippie, ...


No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: