What if Abraham loved his son more than his God?

I don't normally discuss religion in mixed company, however, seeing all the intelligent, articulate people on the forums. I'd like to throw out some ideas for discussion that have been sitting in the back of my mind for awhile.

Rational discussion welcome. Flamers get your own thread.

Oh.. and feel free to base your answers on any belief ranging from "every word is absolute truth" to "it's all a myth." I'd rather discuss the ideas and their affect on societies, than the origin.

--------------------------

I think everyone is familiar with the story of Abraham and Issac. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think also that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all agree on the elements of the story, if not the interpretation.

How would the Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (and societies where they are the majority) be different today if Abraham had told God, "no, I won't murder my child?"

What if God's test was not of obedience, but rather of morality? If Abraham had said no, would God have burned him to ash, or decided that he was ready for a new person-diety relationship?

Would the idea that it's OK to kill in the name of God be missing? To say nothing about the concept that parents own their children as opposed to being responsible for them?

What if Abraham had said, I have no right to offer someone else's life, however, I will sacrifice myself?

Would we be different, the same - would several million Buddists not care?

Discuss

I always assumed that in god's version of the story it was a test of morality and not of obedience and that he had hoped that Abraham would refuse.

The Earthbound religious leaders, however, needed to be able to control the unwashed masses with threats of punishment and made plot adjustments accordingly. God, not being one to push the issue, let these power hungry fellows go to print with the new copy and the rest is history, though maybe not necessarily His-story.

I have it on good authority that He is working on something new anyway and long since pushed the experiment, Earth 1.2, into the back closet.

A powerful question.


The Christian God declares an absolute morality, not a relative one - and is very interested in our words, public life, and sexuality.



So... does absolute morality exist?

If so, Abraham did the right thing to obey the definer of that morality, even against his personal (and obviously ungodlike) feelings on the matter.

If there is no absolute morality, then how dare we tell others what they can and can't do with their employees, wives, and children?




Salman Rushdie took on this precise issue in "The Satanic Verses" - when the mystic Ayesha declared that by Islamic law, a baby must be killed. It's a powerful read.



Incidentally, I do tend to admire some fallen ones. Those who would defy all of Heaven's majesty, power, and promise for selfless, human love.

Even Dante gave them a special place in Hell.

What is the point of preaching commandments that aren't universally applicable? This is the code of law, unless a superceding body determines otherwise. You can break #6 if god says so, or maybe if god's rep says god said so, or if god's rep thought god would say so if he ever bothered to get involved, or if the heathens need to be taught a lesson.

In the name of the Father....

Moral relativism doesn't seem like a godly message.

This is a great topic idea, Surreal. Here's hoping we can have an interesting discussion without someone screaming that they're the only ones who can possibly be right.


In my humble opinion, that wouldn't have been much of a story. And it highlights the probability that it's a parable intended to teach absolute, unquestioning obedience to God. Had the story writers wanted a different moral, the story would have changed. The story essentially defines the nature of faith for the Israelites, and for the Christians and Muslims who came after. The message seems to be saying that our own personal conscience is unreliable and it is better to listen to what others tell us that God wants.


Different message, of course, and probably out of character for that era. Ancient Judaism was derivative of Sumerian (among other sources) tradition - Abraham allegedly grew up in Ur (southern Mesopotamia) where Sumerian culture was strong. This was an era of almost constant wars among small kingdoms, even after the Babylonian conquest. Life was short and brutal and society was very patriarchal -- Abraham being the prototypical ancient patriarch (Islam is still extremely patriarchal). A father had complete dominion over his wives and children even to the point of killing them at his whim. It's hard for me to envision a "moral" Abraham who would have refused his God to spare his son, simply because God was the ultimate patriarch to Abraham, just as Abraham was to his children.

The story could be taken as a cautionary tale against the evils of patriarchalism, among other things.


That's an interesting thought and I think you may be onto something. But let's look at a deeper point -- the story is about total obedience to the Divine, not about conscience. It's about moral control of dogma over the lives of followers, and thus individuals are asked to abandon their own freedom of choice in order to submit their will to the requirements of faith. That's a theme that has run very strongly through all three of the derivative faiths - Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Another what if -- what if Abraham had misunderstood God, and wasn't being asked to kill his son after all? How could he be sure that such a thing was being asked of him? Assuming for a moment that such one-on-one moments with God are largely a matter of perception (I prefer "hallucination", but whatever), what if he just didn't understand? In today's world he'd be put into an institution for such a claim and for murdering his son. Back then, crazy people were possessed by angels or demons and often became holy men.

Whether Abraham's story is apocryphal, metaphorical, or accurate oral history, what you're asking is whether the underpinnings of Christian morality and values are something to be admired and emulated.

As compared to what? The underpinnings of Buddhism? The sectarian race ideology of the German Nazi state or American southern evangelical Protestantism before the Civil War? Foucault's criticism of religious and scientific definitions of normal and abnormal values and behavior? Spiritual versus nationalistic definitions of obedience and child abuse?

In each case, I'd say yes, Christian morality can be admired in ways that militate against the deadly excesses of other ideologies and systems of belief, without offending what is good in Buddhism, for example, or modern liberalism. If I took the idea that "by their fruits you shall know them" to excess, I'd have to condemn everyone and every idea, experience, or point of view. And end up with nothing. But Christ, like nearly every other serious social philosophers, taught balance in life and critical analysis. If you take some of what the Christian gospels say as somewhat accurate, he also taught the necessity of taking things in an intelligent context, such as the story of Abraham.

What amazes me about the Christian Bible is not so much what is wrong-headed, contradictory, or intolerant in it - but the fact that these legions of goat-herders, fanatics, political revolutionaries, family men and women, and pious ecclesiastical bureaucrats could collectively construct such a comparatively consistant and generally positive mythos. One of some value.

Here is something to think about. Abraham coveted his son over God and it was the one thing that truly held him back. God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac not because He wanted Abraham to perform an immoral act but because He knew that if Abraham was able to give in to God’s will, not knowing how good could come of it, but trusting God over himself then Abraham would trust God in other things and truly become a greater man and a product of that greatness was that more good would be done in the name of God.

This take on the story is similar to the man who asked Jesus if he could follow Him. Jesus’ reply was for him to give all of his riches to the poor and then come follow Him. The man went away very sad because he was very rich. Jesus did not ask the rich man to give everything up because it is what everyone should do, that was for “that” man because his riches was what was holding him back and Jesus knew that if he was willing to give it all up that the man would do greater good in the name of God.

Anyway, I believe that Abraham was the same. God knew full well that He was not going to actually have Abraham sacrifice his son. He knew ahead of time that a Ram with his head entangled in thorns would be provided in Isaac’s place foretelling another sacrifice, Jesus, who wore a crown of thorns and was provided in the place of all who believe in Him. God asked this of Abraham for Abraham’s own good, not for immoral reasons as suggested.

That is my take at least. Hope it helps a little.

Excellent post, Criss, and at the risk of seriously derailing this thread (please, no! The original topic hasn't even been scratched yet) let me add that Modern Christianity is more accurately called "Paulinism" than Christianity. Paul introduced his own Hellenic/Mithraic influence (with help from Luke) which diverted the original message of an impoverished simple carpenter into a wider, more 'commercialised' (for lack of a better word) theology that could be evangelised to Gentiles - in particular, Mithrans.

Connecting back to the issue of the Abraham parable, the teachings of Jesus reflected Gnosticism's idea of a personal relationship with the Divine. Paul's influence pointed toward institutionalized Christianity and eventually inserted a priesthood between Man and his beliefs -- that priesthood demanding the same unquestioning obedience that Abraham gave his God.

Interesting, though I think in your example that god could have told A to give his son to some childless couple in a far distant land as a way to force this decision without the conundrum that one may have to choose to obey god in defiance of god's law. This is closer to asking the rich man to give up his worldly possessions than it is in asking someone to sacrifice a child.

How does god feel when his soldier assents to immoral acts in god's name? Is this really what he is looking for? If people can cast off doubt and kill for me, I know they are on the right path? I can't reconcile this with the idea that god would let us loose and we fail or succeed in life based on our choices. Seems just another way to confuse the masses that ends with a "god knows best" trump, a smile and an understanding that we can't understand and to just do what we are told and not think overly much about it.

Of course were I Abraham, I would have told anyone, creator or not, that he was a sick bastard for asking me to kill my son.

And I'd proceed to defy him with my last breath, blaspheming and spreading my story as far and wide as possible.

Trust in this entity would have vanished in an instant never to return.

I'd probably seek help from any opposing power, preferably one on par, or as close to on par as the creator himself as I could find.

But that's just me.



I'm a parent with three kids. You ain't seen hell until you've messed with my kids. I'd singlehandedly add a paragraph to the definition of 'vendetta' in the dictionary should anybody try.

Billy, not to dismiss your argument, but it sounds like you are equating a human life with riches.

I could see a more persuasive argument if you suggested that, just like a parent wants a child to obey, because they feel they know more about the consequences of an act, that God was posing a Parent-child question to Abraham. Could it have been a test to see if Abraham (and his society) still needed absolute rules to make moral decisions?

Also, since Jesus was self-sacrifice, how does that reflect on human moral evolution?

Believe me, it's not just you. From the moment I first looked into my son's eyes, I knew a fierce, protective love ... willing to take on all comers.

As a mother, I always wondered what Sarah was doing. Did she know? As I recall, Isaac was her only son, born well after she had given up on pregnancy. If Abraham snuck off, what kind of reception did he get back at the tent?

I can't imagine commiting an act I know to be wrong because a god, government, or parent told me to except under extreme duress (and maybe not then depending on the act). I can understand how comforting it would be to give up all decision making (and thus all responsibility) to a "higher power," but I couldn't do it myself.

Equating a human life with riches was not my intent at all. I like the "parent, child" analogy but I do not believe it was a test to see if absolute rules were needed to make moral decisions. I believe in this case that it was what one man, Abraham, needed to be willing to give up to truly trust God and prepare him for the great good he would soon achieve for God and Israel.

I do nopt believe that Jesus' sacrifice reflects on human moral evolution at all. I believe that there is only one morality in the eyes of God which is constant and never changes.

One important thing to consider is that at the time of Abraham, there WERE no "commandments." The Ten Commandments, or, more properly, the 613 mitzvot, were not given until the time of Moses, several hundred years later.

And yet it is obvious that this did not mean that people didn't know that it was wrong to kill another; Genesis declares that Adam and Eve's son Cain killed his brother Abel, in what is purported to be the world's first murder, and was cast out for it. Both the moral repugnance of murder and the attachment Abraham had to the son he had waited for for decades (Genesis says that Abraham was an old man when Isaac was born) caused him to quail in the face of what he was being asked to do.

However, the Talmud (Jewish rabbinical teachings) contains a commentary that indicates that Abraham believed that a) if he followed through with God's order to sacrifice his son, that God would bring him back from the dead, or b) God would provide a substitute sacrifice.

When examined more closely in the light of Christian doctrine, it is interesting to note that God did indeed provide a substitute, directing Abraham to sacrifice a ram whose horns were caught in a nearby thicket in place of Isaac, and that also, according to Christian teaching, God eventually offered his OWN son as a substitute sacrifice for all mankind.

P2

Abraham's willingness to trust God at all cost is what made him truly a great man. I am with you and couldn't do it either.

Wow, I often thought the same thing as well. But I never voiced it. I would have offered myself instead, if God needed a sacrifice so badly.

This is parallel to the Abraham question -- both stories deal directly with the conventions of their Faith. Abraham's story implied sacrifice of personal will (using as a plot device the custom of living sacrifice practiced by Sumerian, Canaan, Judaic, et al, faiths). Jesus' story was intended to alter the Covenant by replacing living sacrifice with His own.

I consider the Jesus story to be an amalgamation of various theological revolutions going on at the time. The NT replaces the "eye-for-an-eye" and the living sacrifice practices of the OT with the concept of forgiveness and brotherly love. So any moral evolution which was occurring was already underway when Jesus allegedly lived. Roman law was the direct counterpoint to Christian concepts, and probably had a great deal to do with the direction and success of the fledgling Church -- both as a common villain and as the prime example of how brutal life could be without love & forgiveness.

One point I make often in discussions of ancient Judaism & Christianity is that the Ten Commandments embody practical laws intended for social cohesion much more than they do a secret Divine checklist of "thou shalls" for entrance to Paradise. By worshiping one God, not stealing or committing adultery, and respecting the structure of family (honor thy father), the Commandments achieved nothing short of unification of 12 tribes into one nation. Today, many people view the Commandments as inviolable Divine Law just as they view the stories in the NT as literal, when logically they were created to serve a more practical purpose and were not original in any way.

Just because an act is done in the name of God does not mean that it is the will of God or pleasing at all in the eyes of God.


No, of course not.


Again, this test was for Abraham alone. Abraham had to be willing to lose Isaac which he had placed in importance before God for God to use him. I submit that it is not a way to confuse anyone because indeed God does know what is best. At some time in our own lives God may ask uncomfortable things of all of us even if at the time we can’t understand why. We need to be willing to trust God that yes, He knows what is best better than we do.

I have to admit, I've never really examined this story before and I personally see the bible itself as a work of fiction. But curiosity made me do a little looking and I found something I thought was interesting. When I heard this story, I always pictured Abraham's son as a small child .... But....

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/abraham.html



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac



So IF this is accurate.... I wonder what Isaac's perspective was.

I must confess - this has always perplexed me greatly.

Sacrificed his own son... to... himself?

Are humans created in such a way that they *need* a) blood sacrifice, or b) to burn or be obliterated forever?

Or is it 'not that bad'? If anyone knew they were gonna do ok after 'death', it might be Jesus, yes?

Or is life 'that good' - and being dead really isn't all it's cracked up to be, something to be avoided even if you are a son of an all-powerful creator?


I come from... I would jokingly describe as a "Buddhist Lite" standpoint - I'm not the sort to be carrying prayers on a stick, or even calling Buddhism a religion per se.

It's just that the fundamental need for some of the events in mid-eastern religions confuse me greatly.

I think we need to keep in mind the context of the time that the story was written. At the time human sacrifice was not an abomination that we see it as today and was practiced throughout the region, therefore focusing on the human sacrifice part of it is misleading, I think. In addition, monotheism was not yet an established concept and even the first commandment seems to leave room for there to be other gods. What we do have is the nation of Isreal, which is weak compared to many of the surrounding tribes.

So, here we have a relatively weak nation worshipping YHWH. The temptation to 'defect' to other gods is strong. Out of this we get the story of Abraham. In the story of Abraham YHWH and his 'people' are even weaker. There is no nation at all and YHWH seems to only barely be able to give Abraham a legacy. People hearing this story are going to be thinking..."find a better god, Abe". In the end Abraham proves his faith and he and his descendents are rewarded.

The storyteller is trying to rally people to remain faithful. He shows them that even though things seem bleak staying with YHWH is going to be good for them in the long run. In essence its sort of a pep talk.

Interpreting it in a modern perspective will naturally be much different and always a bit of a reach.

EDIT: oh, i almost fogot...
Abe said, "where you want this killin' done?"
God said, "out on highway 61"

According to some Jewish Midrash (stories about the Torah, not the Torah itself), Sarah died upon hearing of her son's near sacrifice.

On a similar note, if Eris hadn't been banished from Olympus, and rolled that golden apple in.... could we have avoided the Trojan War.

Well, thank Zeus that didn't happen. What would we call computer viruses and our little rubber friends? Whose face would have launched those boats? Bullying someone could no longer be called hectoring. And referring to someone's weak spot as their "heel tendon" just doesn't sound so, eh, neat. What the hell would the capital of France be?

Be thankful for Eris, I say.

Zuzu is correct here. It should also be pointed out that the OT spends a great deal of time belittling and villifying other religions' gods. I mentioned the Canaanite god Baal in another thread, who was actually the God of Fertility, son of El, who died and was resurrected every year. But there was also a Canaanite practice of sacrificing infants in their temples -- a practice the Israelites found repulsive and which formed a large part of their vehement opposition to Canaanite religion.

Sacrifice - even human sacrifice - seems to be a common thread among many primitive human societies. If you're familiar with the temple practices of the Aztecs, you're familiar with one of the worst examples. This is part of what made the Christian idea of "one sacrifice fits all" so cutting-edge.


More as an example, and a parable of what the true meaning of divine love might be, I think. When you think of it, though, had the story of the crucifixion and resurrection not been invented, the whole movement would probably have crumbled into the dust of the Dead Sea like a hundred other ancient cults of the time. Having a martyr always inspires epic traditions and larger followings.