A different reading of Abraham and Issac

[MikeWaters]

I was watching a dumb special on the Mayan on the History channel, and it talked about the human sacrifices they performed in hopes of getting rain, etc.

It sparked an idea for a different reading of the account of Abraham and Isaac, which I am sure is not original, but not something I have really thought a lot about before.

The idea that God would command the sacrifice of Isaac is troubling for what it implies, at least to a lot of people. In the church we emphasize Abraham's willingness to kill, in the similitude of the Father allowing his Son to be killed. We also justify it by saying that Isaac was possibly an adult, and was therefore voluntarily submitting himself as well (because the idea of strapping an 8 year old to an altar and murdering him is even troubling to people who believe in blood atonement).

Another reading is this: that our God is merciful and does not require human sacrifice. The message being "we have a different kind of God that does not require human sacrifice, versus all these other religions you have heard about among other peoples."

In an era and time when the notion of human sacrifice would not have been foreign or unusual, the emphasis, while sitting around the campfire and recounting these stories/legends was on the merciful nature of NOT being required to perform the sacrifice. In contrast to the pagan religions that surrounded them.

Meanwhile in the 21st century we dicker about the ethics of the Judeo-Christian God concerning this event, perhaps missing the larger point which was used to differentiate the nature of God to these people thousands of years ago.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I was watching a dumb special on the Mayan on the History channel, and it talked about the human sacrifices they performed in hopes of getting rain, etc.

It sparked an idea for a different reading of the account of Abraham and Isaac, which I am sure is not original, but not something I have really thought a lot about before.

The idea that God would command the sacrifice of Isaac is troubling for what it implies, at least to a lot of people. In the church we emphasize Abraham's willingness to kill, in the similitude of the Father allowing his Son to be killed. We also justify it by saying that Isaac was possibly an adult, and was therefore voluntarily submitting himself as well (because the idea of strapping an 8 year old to an altar and murdering him is even troubling to people who believe in blood atonement).

Another reading is this: that our God is merciful and does not require human sacrifice. The message being "we have a different kind of God that does not require human sacrifice, versus all these other religions you have heard about among other peoples."

In an era and time when the notion of human sacrifice would not have been foreign or unusual, the emphasis, while sitting around the campfire and recounting these stories/legends was on the merciful nature of NOT being required to perform the sacrifice. In contrast to the pagan religions that surrounded them.

Meanwhile in the 21st century we dicker about the ethics of the Judeo-Christian God concerning this event, perhaps missing the larger point which was used to differentiate the nature of God to these people thousands of years ago.

You close-minded idiot. Don't you know that Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael were all fictional? I have half a mind to throw my appletini right in your face.

(Interesting thought, though, in all seriousness.)

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I was watching a dumb special on the Mayan on the History channel, and it talked about the human sacrifices they performed in hopes of getting rain, etc.

It sparked an idea for a different reading of the account of Abraham and Isaac, which I am sure is not original, but not something I have really thought a lot about before.

The idea that God would command the sacrifice of Isaac is troubling for what it implies, at least to a lot of people. In the church we emphasize Abraham's willingness to kill, in the similitude of the Father allowing his Son to be killed. We also justify it by saying that Isaac was possibly an adult, and was therefore voluntarily submitting himself as well (because the idea of strapping an 8 year old to an altar and murdering him is even troubling to people who believe in blood atonement).

Another reading is this: that our God is merciful and does not require human sacrifice. The message being "we have a different kind of God that does not require human sacrifice, versus all these other religions you have heard about among other peoples."

In an era and time when the notion of human sacrifice would not have been foreign or unusual, the emphasis, while sitting around the campfire and recounting these stories/legends was on the merciful nature of NOT being required to perform the sacrifice. In contrast to the pagan religions that surrounded them.

Meanwhile in the 21st century we dicker about the ethics of the Judeo-Christian God concerning this event, perhaps missing the larger point which was used to differentiate the nature of God to these people thousands of years ago.

I like that insight. I remember my father telling me that he considered the story of Abraham and Isaac to be inconsistent with what we know about the character of God. I tend to see it as a story of a God that toys with Abraham in the cruelest imaginable way. But for people of that era maybe it seemed more like the story of a merciful God.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

Don't you know that Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael were all fictional?

I think Mike's allegorical reading all but presumes this.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I think Mike's allegorical reading all but presumes this.

Oh, so you're saying it really isn't necessary to point it out?

I think I actually can agree with that.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Meanwhile in the 21st century we dicker about the ethics of the Judeo-Christian God concerning this event, perhaps missing the larger point which was used to differentiate the nature of God to these people thousands of years ago.

I'm totally stealing this idea and using it as my own next time I'm in sunday school--if they ever release me from being primary pianist.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I'm totally stealing this idea and using it as my own next time I'm in sunday school--if they ever release me from being primary pianist.

All attribution must be given to Mike Waters.