4 ms·
I think the story would have been more powerful if Abraham himself had decided to not do the sacrifice, and deciding that no matter what God is offering it's no
by tombert 2y ago
I think the story would have been more powerful if Abraham himself had decided to not do the sacrifice, and deciding that no matter what God is offering it's not worth it, sort of like the Huck Finn "All right, then, I'll go to hell". That would be an interesting case of doing what you know is right, no matter who is telling you to do something wrong.
As it stands, it's a decidedly kind of weird story where we're supposed to root for Abraham, despite the fact that he was willing to sacrifice another human being just because someone told him to. Yes, that someone was "God", but that doesn't change my point.
I have to admit that I didn't completely understand where you were going with the second part. I'm not sure what you were asking in regards to "what proof I have"? Proof that I don't think a God exists? Proof that I value human life? Proof that I think it's wrong to kill someone just because you hear a voice that tells you to? Even if that voice actually were God?
I mean, I don't really know how to prove that. That's just my belief, I guess you could say I'm lying about that, but I don't know what to tell you there.
- carlosjobim 2y ago> I have to admit that I didn't completely understand where you were going with the second part. I'm not sure what you were asking in regards to "what proof I have"? That was me channeling the tribesmen, that any Abraham would have to respond to, especially if he wanted to continue being their leader or have an influence on decision. They would offer plenty of proof that human sacrifice was beneficial, and that this is evidence that gods exist and that they are keeping up their end of the bargain. How would you answer to them and actually manage to make them consider your new idea? > I think the story would have been more powerful if Abraham himself had decided to not do the sacrifice, and deciding that no matter what God is offering it's not worth it, sort of like the Huck Finn "All right, then, I'll go to hell". That would be an interesting case of doing what you know is right, no matter who is telling you to do something wrong. I would say it is evident that the story already is plenty powerful, considering how long it has survived through the ages. And what you are saying can also be read through the lines as what happened. An overwhelming force was influencing Abraham to sacrifice his son. The force of custom was and still is incredibly powerful over people and their decisions, a disembodied force, which probably was experienced by prehistoric man as a speaking entity. Then a moment of enlightenment, a break from old conventions and the realization that great rewards can be had without having to make great sacrifices. But by following other conventions, obeying a set of rules in life instead of seeing deities as trading partners giving blessings in exchange for sacrifices. If we want to go a step further, it is also a slight break from egocentrism. Something most children go through, but that maybe prehistoric man never grew out of. What I mean by egocentrism is that the premise of sacrifice for reward is the dumb idea that "If I loose something (by sacrificing it), then that means somebody gained it". Since there's no physical being around who gained, well it is the spirits who gained it. Instead of realizing that whatever was sacrificed was simply spoilt. But not a total break of course, as that ram in the bushes was still sacrificed.
- tombert 2y agoI don't agree that that can be read between the lines with that, at least in the publications that we have access to in 2025. The story pretty clearly seems to be about rewarding undying dedication to God, and at least how it's written, Abraham decidedly doesn't decide to do the right thing.