Abraham: A Vessel For Peace

Abraham, the father of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, is a significant figure in the history of religion, and in world events, because his story provides the basis for religious conflicts, but at the same time his role as a common ancestor may be the key to reaching worldwide religious tolerance. Abraham’s close relationship motivates these three main monotheistic religions to identify with him and his descendants, creating the possibility of a family bond that could be used as a “vessel” towards peace.

The fight over which religion is most legitimate – whose connection to Abraham is strongest – can be looked at as a violent family feud. The beginning of this religious clash is seen in the text itself, and has carried on over the centuries. In the story, god states that he will make both of Abraham’s sons into great nations.  However, in the story of Abraham, when Isaac and Ishmael get older, they grow to be bitter enemies. Over centuries and millennia, this conflicted relationship turns into violent wars between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  For Christians, Abraham becomes a figure to minimize the religious importance of Judaism, as the story of Isaac’s sacrifice foreshadows Jesus’ (god’s son) crucifixion. In the early years of Islam, Mohammed preached that god’s covenant and relationship with Abraham was open to all religions. However, as Islamic beliefs spread and Islam became a powerful religion, many Islamists began to “elbow” the Jews out of the story and insist that the text was trying to show the importance of Islam.  They started to preach that Abraham actually loved Ishmael more than Isaac.  Many even said that rather than almost sacrificing Isaac, Abraham actually chose Ishmael when god asked Abraham to sacrifice his favorite son.  Religious persecutions, the crusades, and religious extremists have been the products of this early religious conflict.

Though Abraham’s figure brings religious conflicts, he also may be the key to religious tolerance and peace.  Abraham is the greatest link between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  He is the forefather of these religions and thought of as a leader and a role model.  More importantly, he is thought of as the biological father of these religions.  In the story of Abraham, it states that when Abraham dies at 175 years old, his sons, Isaac and Ishmael who are enemies of opposing nations, come together and bury their father side by side.  They coexist because of a common father who they love.

It is interesting that rather than appreciating a common ancestor and role model, religions battle over who is connected to the “true Abraham.”  Yet, I believe that the only route to religious tolerance and peace is for people to give up the idea that they hold the only truth and to accept that opposing interpretations are inevitable.  It is useless and inhumane to combat people who believe differently because there will never be only one view of Abraham.  As said in the podcast, Abraham is the best vessel we have to accomplishing peace throughout religions.

Abraham's Role In Cultural Diffusion

The story of Abraham is a well-known tale in modern society. It is a complex story that highlights both a profound connection between god and a human, but also shows controversial moral problems with Abraham’s character.

It is therefore puzzling why Judaism, Christianity and Islam would choose to associate themselves with this man. This story is part of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions, and each of these major monotheistic religions all associate their origins with this story. I find this interesting because this story does make Abraham out to be a completely righteous person. He makes many decisions that today would be looked at as inhumane such as almost sacrificing his own son, and casting out one of his wives with another one of his children.

In a basic sense, the common tradition of the Abraham story is an example of cultural diffusion. Abraham is considered the founding father of the Jews and the story is incorporated into Christian and Islamic texts. Usually one culture will adopt an idea from another culture if it feels that the idea will be beneficial or meaningful to the culture.  Yet, Abraham is not a man full of righteousness and morality, but rather a devoted religious figure that has made some very radical decisions. So why is he given such a special place in the history of Christianity and Islam if he is not a completely righteous person? 

I believe that the answer highlights an interesting incentive for a type of cultural diffusion. One would think that the incentive behind purposefully adopting ideas from other cultures would be to bring something meaningful and helpful to the culture. However, in this case, these immerging religions chose to identify with a controversial figure. I believe that writers of Christian and Islamic texts might have chosen to do so for the purpose of, for lack of a better term, marketing appeal. Abraham was a well-know religious figure in the times of Jesus and Mohammed.  If newly forming religions could count him among their ancestors, it probably made their emerging ideas seem less controversial to the surrounding population. I believe that this form of cultural diffusion can be looked at as a type of marketing decision.  Even though Abraham was a controversial figure, his fame may have helped the early followers of other religions spread their appeal. 

Cultures adopt ideas from each other consciously and subconsciously.  I believe that the story of Abraham may have been adopted by Christian and Islamic texts, despite Abraham’s flaws, for the purpose of appealing to a broader community. 

The Motivation For Humans To Interact

This week we examined the spread of different cultures’ religious beliefs and practices around the world over time.  We determined that human interactions have been the engine of history. That is, everyday interactions between humans, some notable and some routine, have triggered every (human related) event, belief, and value in both local communities and broader regions. Our world most likely would not function the way it currently does if humans had not started interacting thousands of years ago.

Human interactions have been so significant because they have led to cultural diffusion.   Cultural diffusion is the sharing of ideas between individuals of different cultures. It can happen purposefully as when people have the incentive to learn from each other, or can happen accidently because of exposure to other cultures that inevitably result in new ideas.  Cultural diffusion can be seen in the earliest of times.  When people came together to hunt or protect their children or even to reproduce, cultures fused ideas together and advancements were made.  Hunters learned how to make sharper weapons by learning from each other.  Women learned how to look after their children by learning from other mothers.  Cultural diffusion, a product of human interaction, is what allows our world to advance.  It is more difficult for a single man to produce new ideas than for ten men to work together. 

Yet, there must be a reason that motivates humans to work together, and ultimately that leads to cultural diffusion. I would argue that instinctually, humans have a natural drive to survive both on an individual and communal level. Human decisions are consciously or subconsciously made with the purpose of living an easier, healthier, happier, and more prosperous life.  The development of the Silk Road, one of the most identifiable examples of cultural diffusion, can be analyzed from this perspective. This major trading route between Asia and Europe, was created because humans believed that they could live more prosperously and healthfully by trading goods such as jewels, fabrics, and spices.  It was a creation motivated by the desire for more prosperous lives.  The human instinct to survive more easily is reason for all human decisions and actions. 

            Of course, the human drive to survive does not always result in positive advancements for humans. Sometimes, the instinct live more prosperously can lead to actions that many make the lives of some much worse. An example of this is war.  Wars over religion, land, power, or other resources come from the idea that a conflict must take place in order for a nation to live more prosperously. In order to live in a better world, one religion must destroy another religion, or one country must destroy the government of another country.

            Human interactions lead to cultural diffusion, which then leads to new ideas and events. Yet, it is the natural human instinct to survive that motivates humans to interact with each other.  It is the basic psychological motivation that has led to both the greatest human achievements and the most violent acts.  

Inevitable Religious Assimilation

In the chapter titled Akhenaton and Historical Diffusion, the textbook explains that the ideas that led to the development of early religions were often based upon the beliefs of other religions that had influence in the same area.  For instance, Judaism’s belief in one god may have been influenced by Akhenaton’s monotheism in Egypt under his rule.  In this case, the belief in one all powerful god may have been adapted by the Jews in the area. Egyptian Jews were exposed to the idea of having one god by living within a culture where the dominant religion was monotheism (under Akhenaton’s rule). This is an example of how ideas and beliefs spread in ancient times because of the proximity of one ethnic group to another. 

            Currently, it is difficult to find a belief or idea that hasn’t been shared or spread across different regions among different culture groups. Worldwide media such as the Internet and television have made beliefs widespread and accessible around the globe.  Though this globalization has brought connection, community, and education throughout the world, it has also made it nearly impossible to avoid the ideological influence of Western culture.

            The quick and easy spread of Western ideas has led to opposition against this natural blending of ideas between cultures. It has led to a struggle for many to maintain an original belief system. For example, Islamic fundamentalist groups like Al Qaeda are largely motivated by the concern that Western culture has had too much influence on Islamic society.  They believe that modern Western life has corrupted many Muslim governments, many Muslim people, and much of the world. They feel that it is their religious duty to combat Western culture and therefore the Western world.  This is a case where the spread of ideas and culture is unwanted and has led to violent conflicts. 

            Today, many followers of religions and cultures attempt to keep what they believe to be their core ideas and beliefs separate from assimilation.  In a world where ideas easily fuse and a range of cultures are apparent all over the world, many are facing the struggle to maintain a pure and original belief system.  

Religious Codes of Ethics

Over the past few class periods we have discussed the negative effects that organized religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have on our world.  These include religious conflicts and the creation of religious extremists.  We have entertained the possibility that there would be less violent conflicts in our world without these religions.  Although I agree that religion can cause violent conflicts, I believe that if our world were absent of religion, we would live in a chaotic environment with a devastating lack of order.

            The major organized religions contain of a moral code or set of laws that are supposed to guide followers on how to live righteous lives.  These principles and laws are usually found in religious writings that date back thousands of years.  For example, the Ten Commandments describe ten rules which people must live by.  In Christianity, Jesus’ preaching’s said that people should not retaliate in a violent situation.  These laws have laid the foundation for a just society for thousands of years all over the world.  

I would argue that even though adherence to organized religions can result in conflicts, the sets of laws and principles that religions offer keep humans from living in a chaotic society. Humans are not born knowing that murder and stealing is wrong.  They learn these values from being brought up with a code of ethics.  The basis of this system of values is often religious teachings. Even if people don’t go to charge, many of the laws of civil government are also based on the principles found in religious teachings. The morals that keep modern society civilized are extremely influenced by religious teachings

The morals and values that religions teach are what keep humans from living in chaos.  Peoples’ moral compasses usually evolve from religious influences. Even though organized religions can lead to violent conflicts, religion is what keeps the human race civilized.  

Polytheism Can Create Conflict

In the chapter of the Moran Themes textbook titled Ancient Religion, Kirsch explains that a completely polytheistic world could result less violence and extremism than in a monotheistic world. This is because monotheists who believe that their supreme being holds the absolute truth cannot co-exist with individuals who believe otherwise.  This often leads to violent clashes. Kirsch argues that a polytheistic world would allow individuals to be more tolerant of others’ belief systems.  However, I would argue that a polytheistic world could cause just as many conflicts as a world dominated by monotheism.

The first reason that a polytheistic world would not necessarily reduce conflicts is that even though individuals may be more tolerant of others’ gods, disagreements on principles of belief could still arise.  For example, even though individuals might accept the existence of each other’s gods, the practices derived from one god may contradict those of another god.  Polytheistic tolerance simply means that an individual can live with the notion that there are other gods in addition to the ones he or she worships.   This does not necessarily mean that an individual’s beliefs will not contradict another’s. 

The second reason that polytheism may bring as much conflict as monotheism is because polytheism does not provide a dominant moral code for everyone to follow. Polytheism does not require individuals to follow a common moral code or to share similar values.  In this type of society, there is no one absolute truth that states which laws must be followed and what is good and what is evil.  The absence of this means that everyone can have their own moral code, and that value systems can vary widely across society.  Because there is no one supreme power that everyone is supposed to believe in, it can lead to a world of conflict.

One of the main objectives of monotheistic religions is to enforce a code of law supported by a supreme being that knows the absolutely truth.  Because followers of monotheistic religions are expected to believe in this supreme power, they are expected to follow its laws. However, a polytheistic society means that individuals can follow an array of value systems.  If one person believes that murder is acceptable, and another person believes that it is not, there is no one religious code to decide who is right.  This can lead to chaos and possibly increased conflict.

Personalized Religious Observance

Every individual has a different viewpoint about what his or her religion means. Some people believe that being a part of an organized religion means that they have an obligation to accept and embrace its mainstream beliefs.  Others believe that identifying with a religion is more of a process of deciding which values are important to live by and choosing from a pool of ideas.

I believe that one’s relationship with his or her religion is based on the struggle to understand which values, beliefs, and traditions are meaningful to them. In my own experience, I have been brought up in a moderately religious environment where I have been given the opportunity to explore the traditions of my ancestors  and what they mean to me. This ability to choose has played a major role in how I’ve shaped my religious identity and how I believe religions should function in general. I believe that one’s experience with religion should be individual and personal and ideas should not be forced upon religious followers. Religion is meant to give people positive components of their life such as hope and meaning; it is not supposed to be a burden. Having the option to choose what parts of my religion are meaningful has allowed me to find values, beliefs, and traditions that I try to live by and that shape me as a person.  

Though many people like myself value the ability to personalize religious observance, a lot of people are raised to believe that every aspect of their religion contains the absolute truth and needs to be followed. These individuals cannot question values or beliefs or decide what parts of their religion they wish to follow and live by. Furthermore, the certainty of the entirety of a religious code can impede one’s ability to be tolerant of other’s beliefs.  If an individual believes that his or her religion necessarily cannot be right, and must be living against the words of the only truthful god.  This is what causes religious conflicts throughout the world. For this reason, many people despise religion and believe that our world would be better off without it.

I believe that if more people are given the freedom to decide what part of their religions are most meaningful, they will realize that maybe there is not only one truth and not all follows of a different religion are living against the words of absolute truth. There would be more religious tolerance and fewer conflicts.