The story of Abraham and Isaac from the Bible is quite an interesting one. The story tells of God ordering Abraham to bring the best thing that he owned to the top of a mountain and sacrifice it there. If the best thing that Abraham owned was something simple then this story would be a nice story where a man shows his devotion to God by giving up something simple yet beloved in His name; however, what Abraham decides to be his best is not so simple in the slightest. Isaac, the son of Abraham, turns out to be the best thing Abraham has and must be sacrificed to God. Even though ultimately Isaac was not sacrificed this story cannot be ethically told in a sermon because of the risk that the most devout or unbalanced may follow in Abraham’s footsteps.
…show more content…
Kierkegaard blames this on our homogenization of Isaac and The Best. When we think of the story as a man sacrificing his best thing to God it is a wonderful story about a man enriching his relationship to God. Though when we interchange The Best with Isaac we get a much darker and suspenseful story about a man destroying his fatherly obligations to his son to appease his God. Because of this, a significant contradiction arises, we love and praise Abraham for his devotion to his God while at the same time we ignore his neglect for the moral law. Ethically speaking this is a terrible story because it says that if an action is done in the name of religion then moral laws do not pertain. Soren Kierkegaard explains this blatant disregard for the moral law when he says that the ethical expression for what Abraham meant to do was murder Isaac while the religious expression was he meant to sacrifice (30). The story would have us believe that sacrifice is not murder because the killing is done religiously. “If faith cannot make it a holy act to be willing to murder his son, then let the same judgment be passed on Abraham as on everyone else” (30). Kierkegaard wants to know what is so special about …show more content…
Acts done with religion in mind are seemingly okay, like the sacrifice of Isaac though the very same act is horribly wrong with ethics in mind. The way in which sermons communicate these stories share some blame in creating the danger. Sermons tell of Abraham and Isaac in such a way that it makes it seem like it is nothing out of the ordinary. A man hears the voice of God speak solely to him telling him to take his son to a secluded place and sacrifice his son. Kierkegaard speaks of a situation arising where a man hears this sermon from a preacher and reenacts it. The preacher goes to him furious and condemns him for his actions being that of a devil though just last Sunday he spoke of Abraham with nothing but praise for his actions. Kierkegaard refers to this as being infinitely comic and tragic simultaneously (29). The preacher, both comically and tragically, never thought that he would be taken seriously and yet he preached in such a way that made it seem as if he should be taken
Kierkegaard blames this on our homogenization of Isaac and The Best. When we think of the story as a man sacrificing his best thing to God it is a wonderful story about a man enriching his relationship to God. Though when we interchange The Best with Isaac we get a much darker and suspenseful story about a man destroying his fatherly obligations to his son to appease his God. Because of this, a significant contradiction arises, we love and praise Abraham for his devotion to his God while at the same time we ignore his neglect for the moral law. Ethically speaking this is a terrible story because it says that if an action is done in the name of religion then moral laws do not pertain. Soren Kierkegaard explains this blatant disregard for the moral law when he says that the ethical expression for what Abraham meant to do was murder Isaac while the religious expression was he meant to sacrifice (30). The story would have us believe that sacrifice is not murder because the killing is done religiously. “If faith cannot make it a holy act to be willing to murder his son, then let the same judgment be passed on Abraham as on everyone else” (30). Kierkegaard wants to know what is so special about …show more content…
Acts done with religion in mind are seemingly okay, like the sacrifice of Isaac though the very same act is horribly wrong with ethics in mind. The way in which sermons communicate these stories share some blame in creating the danger. Sermons tell of Abraham and Isaac in such a way that it makes it seem like it is nothing out of the ordinary. A man hears the voice of God speak solely to him telling him to take his son to a secluded place and sacrifice his son. Kierkegaard speaks of a situation arising where a man hears this sermon from a preacher and reenacts it. The preacher goes to him furious and condemns him for his actions being that of a devil though just last Sunday he spoke of Abraham with nothing but praise for his actions. Kierkegaard refers to this as being infinitely comic and tragic simultaneously (29). The preacher, both comically and tragically, never thought that he would be taken seriously and yet he preached in such a way that made it seem as if he should be taken