Incredibly enough, Abraham’s actions are considered “good” by most Christians, even though we probably value human life quite higher than we did thousands — or even hundreds — of years ago. However, due to precisely the latter fact, many people explain that part of the bible as “not literal”, “just an allegory”, or “simply a moral lesson”.

Vjack of Atheist Revolution addresses that contradiction: even if that is just “an allegory”, it’s an allegory to what? Certainly, in modern moral terms, there’s nothing to learn from a father ready to kill his infant child. Besides, many Christians don’t believe it to be “just an allegory”: many fundamentalists, especially in America, believe in the Bible (with all its absurdities, atrocities and contradictions) literally.

As for choosing which parts of the Bible to take literally and which ones not to, I have addressed it in the past, such as here. In short: if you accept that the Bible is the inspired word of God, then, for a human to decide which parts come from God and which don’t, or to decide which are literal and which aren’t, is an act of supreme arrogance, it’s believing you “know better than God”.

But what about the morality of this tale, itself?

Consider the following: if you had a young child and a god, or an angel, told you, in no uncertain terms, and with no possibility of it being merely a dream or hallucination, to sacrifice — to kill — that child of yours, what would you do?

Theists, here — at least, the more fundamentalist ones, who believe that nothing is important in life except pleasing God — would say that they would indeed kill their child, without hesitation. Because, to them, morality is obeying God, nothing more.

But suppose that it wasn’t God at all, but that you lived under a dictatorship, and it was the cruel dictator General Fang who ordered you to kill your child in front of him, to prove your loyalty to him and to the State. Or else.

What would you do? And, more importantly, what would you think of General Fang’s moral standing?

My guess is that, assuming you didn’t do so already, you would consider him the most evil of beings. A sadistic, controlling, dictatorial monster, who treats people as mere objects.

No matter how much Christians attempt to redefine “morality” so that it’s just an arbitrary thing, the pleasing of one powerful being’s whims, the fact remains that God’s supposed actions were morally monstrous — just replace him with a human being, and note how disgusted you’ll probably be. And the fact that he stopped the “test” at the last moment doesn’t really change anything.

The only proper action for Abraham, or for anyone in his place, would be to spit back in God’s face in disgust, to refuse to follow such a despotic, evil monster anymore. Whatever the consequences. Such a monster doesn’t deserve worship, regardless of his power.

Yet, Abraham — the revered patriarch of the three great monotheistic religions — proved himself no more than a craven coward, a disgusting sycophant, a man without the slightest sense of morality, of right and wrong, who simply wants to be on the “strong” side, to “please” the one in power. Much like a man who wants to impress a Mafia don. And yet he’s widely respected by today’s religions. What does that say about the morality of those?