Abraham

[Alaric]

And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him... Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
- Gen 22.1

What are your opinions on this story of the father of the great monotheistic religions? Abraham was promised by God that he would through his son become the father of a chosen people. He was already old, and he and his wife Sarah grew much older before finally, miraculously, she conceived and gave birth to Isaac. God eventually commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham obeys; he walks for three days, climbs the mountain with Isaac, prepares everything, takes out the knife... and is stopped by an angel, who provides a ram to take the place of Isaac.

What does this say about God, what does it say about Abraham, and what does it say about faith and morality?

 

[Death]

What does this say about God, what does it say about Abraham, and what does it say about faith and morality?

It says that Abraham was a religious whacko who would do something as abominable as kill his son because God told him to. It shows that God wants complete adherence to him over morality. Notice how he doesn't step in and tell Jephthah to stop in judges.

 

[painted wolf]

I'd have to agree with Death for the most part.
Kinda' makes me glad I'm not of the Abrahamic religons...
Taken as metaphore it does show the strength of faith in this 'founding father'. A scary, sort of faith but faith.
Great role model isn't he :roll:

 

[Truthseeker5]

And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him... Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

It is a story which illustrates faith above reason. What is faith above reason ? Well Abraham was ordered by God to kill his son, obviously in Abrahams own mind and heart he didn't want to do this. So he had to put Faith in The Creator above his own reason and this is what is known as faith above reason.

Kabbalists teach us that we also have an obligation to to do this. All the things that our sensory organs construe as unpleasant we must convice ourselves that they are good this is beacause there isn't anything which isn't sent to us that isn't from God. As it says in the first line of Shamati: "There is no one else beside him."

Have a look at this article for a more detailed description of this process.

http://www.kabbalah.info/engkab/book_4/book4eng_02.htm

 

[Lightkeeper]

When you think about it God didn't ask Abraham to do something He wouldn't do. In Christian religion God gave his only begotten son. I see it all as metaphor and inward processes. Like the Job story it's about not giving up in tough times, keep pressing forward.

 

[anders]

That two persons are willing to kill their sons does not make the issue more palatable. (Or four persons, if we have to count God as three persons according to the Christian faith, which would make Jesus' death a suicide.)

Lucky for all concerned that an angel stopped the process in the Abraham case. I have long wondered if that angel was punished by God for the obvious insubordination.

 

[Lightkeeper]

After further thinking about Abraham and his being asked to kill his son, this is metaphor and is a familiar theme in many religions. I think it would be a willingness to give up that which is most dear to you in order to have unity with the Divine. It would be the similar to non-attachment in order to find your true nature. In Christianity it would be, you have to die to be born again and don't collect treasures here on earth. It's all metaphor for inner processes.

 

[Death]

After further thinking about Abraham and his being asked to kill his son, this is metaphor and is a familiar theme in many religions. I think it would be a willingness to give up that which is most dear to you in order to have unity with the Divine. It would be the similar to non-attachment in order to find your true nature. In Christianity it would be, you have to die to be born again and don't collect treasures here on earth. It's all metaphor for inner processes.

You do realise what semitic religion was like "back in the day" right? What justification have you got for claiming it's all metaphor? Sounds like ad hoc rationalisation to me.

 

[Lightkeeper]

Zeus and Aphrodite, were "back in the day" also. That was also Metaphor. Religion is metaphor for inward energies that we project outwardly. "Back in the day" they were more inclined to project than we are today.

 

[Runt]

Well Abraham was ordered by God to kill his son, obviously in Abrahams own mind and heart he didn't want to do this. So he had to put Faith in The Creator above his own reason and this is what is known as faith above reason.

Kabbalists teach us that we also have an obligation to to do this.

Okay Truthseeker, I've got to ask... if God were to suddenly come to me and say, "Find your internet friend, Truthseeker, and kill him, for this is my will," and I agreed....and then God came to you and said "Your internet friend, Runt, is coming to kill you. It is my will that you should die by her hand" would you submit to the will of God by ALLOWING me to sacrifice you, or would you act with that hateful thing we call desire (in this case, the desire to perserve your own life) and disobey God by fighting me off?

Seriously though... some questions:

Do you think it is wrong to act against the will of God? Even if it is God's will that you should submit to your own murder?

Do you think God would truly ever ask that of anyone? And why?

Does God scorn His creation so much that He would ask them to lay down their LIVES (and in the Bible it is blatantly clear that God values human life very much... "Thou shalt not kill"...we'll ignore all the little stipulations on that commandment for now) simply to prove their faith to him?

Wouldn't he already know whether or not they have faith...and therefore have no need to test them in such a way?

 

[anders]

Runt,

You write "(and in the Bible it is blatantly clear that God values human life very much... "Thou shalt not kill"...)" But have a look at the story how the people of Israel made their way into Palestine: one genocide after the other, priding in how they left no survivors. There are too many instances to quote.

As the topic relates to intended infanticide, I quote two cases where this is ordered and/or praised (there are, of course, more similar verses):

II Kings 8:12: "...and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their women with child."

To make sure that there is no misunderstanding, or any possibility of discarding the quote as something to be interpreted as an allegory, there is also Psalms 137:9 "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones".

 

[Alaric]

I'm just reading 'Fear and Trembling' by Søren Kierkegaard (brilliant! I highly recommend it), which is all about this theme. He argues that Abraham's faith is not great in the sense that he just blindly did whatever God told him to do, but great in the sense that Abraham had faith that he would get Isaac back somehow. Abe did not resign Isaac to God - he had faith that God was good and would fulfil His promise regarding Isaac's destiny.

Think about it - if you are going to be the father of a chosen people, it doesn't work that you do not trust God, to whom your people are supposed to be dedicated, or that you are more attached to your worldly possessions and loved ones than God. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't love and protect them, or just blindly sacrifice them; it means that you should trust that God loves them as much if not more than you do. Abraham didn't second-guess God, cry out, beg, etc - He believed, accepted, passed the test with flying colours and managed to maintain his faith, Isaac, and his destiny. Kierkegaard makes a distinction between resignation to God, and faith in God; resignation being a gloomy acceptance of His will, faith being a positive belief in His good (or something like that).

Kierkegaard notes a couple of other key points (so far). One was that Isaac was everything to Abraham, all his pleasure in this world, all his hopes and dreams, so you cannot compare the sacrifice to the sacrifice of wealth or other things that are just comforts or pleasures. Abraham was willing to give up everything valuable in this world because He believed that God was not mocking him or being heartless.

Another was the suffering - the walk to the mountains of Moriah took three days. What must he have been thinking? What about Isaac - what to say to him? This is a major reason for his 'greatness' - Abe was tested beyond the endurance of most people and succeeded.

And the last was the suspension of the ethical - today, we would not accept a claim by someone that he had to kill his son for God. And neither would anyone back then. The key is to believe that there is something that supercedes the ethical, something that gives meaning to it. Noone was around to judge Abraham on the way, so that wasn't the issue. And God could likely not expect people to just accept Abraham's claims. Perhaps the point is the faith that that which was the ultimate cause of morality and ultimate Cause of everything does not arbitrarily ask things that hurt you.

The thing that bothers me is Abraham's right to sacrifice Isaac in the first place - the story would lose meaning if it wasn't the most precious thing of all that Abe has to sacrifice, but Abraham didn't 'own' Isaac. But maybe that's a modern opinion.

 

[anders]

Alaric,

If you understand one single sentence of that jumble of words, then you are a better man than I.

I have copied you post and will read it very carefully, in case you write something that I will understand. Why does Kierkegaard write four different versions? Are they telling the same story? And what is the meaning of the parts on weaning?

My impression of the existentialists (I am now struggling with a few of them) is that they have nothing to tell you, and hide that fact by using a language which is impossible to decipher.

You put the finger on Abrahams selfishness: "... if you are going to be the father of a chosen people ..." Is that more important than the life of your son? What good will the ancestorship do to you when you are dead?

 

[Alaric]

I really liked those four stories, they were a brilliant way to start the book. They show different ways in which Abraham may have reacted to God's request, and making us think about the consequences. The commentary on each section is my own interpretation, so I could well be wrong.

I.
Summary: Isaac is fearful, Abraham tries to be consoling in his attitude. Then Isaac begs for his young life, and Abraham turns on him, saying "Foolish boy, do you believe I am your father? I am an idolator. Do you believe this is God's command? No, it is my own desire." Then Isaac full of anguish cries out to God for Him to be his father since he has none on earth and Abraham whispers under his breath: "Lord in Heaven I thank Thee; it is after all better that he believe I am a monster than that he lose faith in Thee."
*
-When a child is to be weaned, the mother blackens her breast, for it would be a shame were the breast to look pleasing when the child is not to have it. So the child believes that the breast has changed but the mother is the same, her look loving and tender as ever. Lucky the one that needed no more terrible means to wean a child!-

Here, Kierkegaard confronts the notion that Isaac would lose all faith in God because God had asked that he be killed by his own father. So perhaps Abraham should turn on him as he did in this version, since how could Isaac be the father of a nation if he had lost God? The weaning of the child metaphor is brilliant - the child is attached to the breast, not the mother, so you blacken the breast to show that it is the mother and not the breast that the child should be attached to. As with Isaac - it is not Abraham, but God that Isaac should be attached to. But what a terrible way to wean him!

But K. would say this is a misunderstanding of the story, because Isaac does not need to believe that it was Abraham and not God that wanted to kill him.

II.
Summary: Abraham does as he is commanded, but silently, joylessly, with despair. His gaze lingers on the ground, when he sees the mountains of Moriah his looks away. He prepares to kill Isaac, accepted the ram, and all was well - yet Abraham became old, he could not forget what God had demanded of him, he saw joy no more.
*
-When the child has grown and is to be weaned the mother virginally covers her breast, so the child no more has a mother. Lucky the child that lost its mother in no other way!-

Here, we have the Abraham of resignation. He does what God wishes, resigns himself to the will of God, but does not have faith that God will give him Isaac back again. He does not have faith that God will help him in this life, only in the next. But when the mother covers her breast, is she less of a mother? If your mother asks you to do something evil, don't you assume to the end that the act is not evil and you've misunderstood it?

III.
When Abraham gets to Moriah, he throws himself down in front of God and begs forgiveness for having been willing to sacrifice his son, to have abandoned his sacred duty to him. He couldn't understand why it was a sin to want to sacrifice the best he owned, but if it was a sin, why was he forgiven, for what crime could be more terrible?
*
-When the child is to be weaned the mother too is not without sorrow, that she and the child grow more and more apart; that the child which first lay beneath her heart, yet later rested at her breast, should no longer be so close. Thus together they suffer theis brief sorrow. Lucky the one who kept the child so close and had no need to sorrow more!-

Basically: is your loyalty to God, or to worldy morality? Do you reject the will of God for jumping to the conclusion that they are not compatible? Does your maturing and independence really need to distance yourself from your mother? (I'm a bit unsure of this one.)

IV.
Summary: The story plays out as per the story, except that when Abraham is about to perform the sacrifice, Isaac notices a shudder run through Abraham, and than his hand was clenched in anguish. They return home, but Isaac had lost his faith, although Isaac never told anyone and Abraham didn't realize this.
*
-When the child is to be weaned the mother has more solid food at hand, so that the child will not perish. Lucky the one who has more solid food at hand!-

Abraham does not have faith, and Isaac sees this, and consequently loses faith himself - why would his own father kill him if he wasn't sure he'd get him back? The child has faith that although he is not to be given the breast any more, he will be provided for. He would lose faith in his mother if he thought that she did not.

I think these are beautiful ways of portraying different ways of thinking about the story. There is so much depth to be found in it - it's not just about a religious fanatic, necessarily.

 

[anders]

I still understand nothing, but will go on trying. None of the versions tells me, so far, anything.

Many thanks, though, for trying to enlighten me!

 

[Alaric]

Hmmm... maybe it needs to be said that Kierkegaard was taking up an issue that priests everywhere were preaching about in church, about the greatness of Abraham, without giving much thought to the consequences, or trying to understand the story. None of them would have accepted if one of their congregation decided that he would imitate Abe and sacrifice his own child - so what was the great thing about Abe then? He starts by using these versions to show very different ways of seeing the story, each with very different implications. If you don't understand the story, arguably you don't understand God, even if you consider yourself a Christian.

 

[Alaric]

I'm just bumping this up to hear other's opinions on this thread. To the religious, do you think that there is a teleological suspension of the ethical? That is, if the ethical is the universal, thereby implying that one's morality is judged by it's social intentions, should your see this morality as an extension of God's will, or should you be prepared to act in contradiction to the ethical if God commands it?

According to Kierkegaard, Abraham accepted God's command unflichingly in the belief that God's promise to him (of being the father of a nation) would be fulfilled anyway; that he would get Isaac back. He resigned himself completely to losing Isaac, but the sacrifice was not for the good of society in the manner of a tragic hero, but rather in unwavering faith that God's will is good and to the benefit of all. Therefore by being willing to sacrifice Isaac, he is in effect saying that there is something higher than the ethical, namely the divine. If he is wrong, then ethically he should be condemned as a murderer. But please read my other posts on this thread.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him... Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
- Gen 22.1

What are your opinions on this story of the father of the great monotheistic religions? Abraham was promised by God that he would through his son become the father of a chosen people. He was already old, and he and his wife Sarah grew much older before finally, miraculously, she conceived and gave birth to Isaac. God eventually commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham obeys; he walks for three days, climbs the mountain with Isaac, prepares everything, takes out the knife... and is stopped by an angel, who provides a ram to take the place of Isaac.

What does this say about God, what does it say about Abraham, and what does it say about faith and morality?

I think tormenting a poor old man like that is cruel, even if a god does it. I tried to ask myself if I could see this story another way, but nope. All I keep hitting is poor old Abe was asked to do such a heart-wrenching thing as a test. Presumably, this deity would have known too his request would kill Abraham on the inside. Can you imagine the torment and agony this must have put Abraham through?

 

[RabbiO]

I think tormenting a pooru old man like that is cruel, even if a god does it"........."

Just curious, are you aware that his thread has been dormant for almost 14 years? I ask only evades just about all those who posted on this thread have not been on the forum for that length of time as well.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Just curious, are you aware that his thread has been dormant for almost 14 years? I ask only evades just about all those who posted on this thread have not been on the forum for that length of time as well.

I was going through old threads out of curiosity, to see what was on here from over the years. Also, if I thought it was worth replying to, I would- or to see if anyone had new input on the subject. Essentially, I thought to myself- there must be a bunch of interesting old stuff lying around here!