About detachment, preference and freedom

  • Thread starter Thread starter NormalBeliever
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NormalBeliever

Guest
One of the interesting things I found when considering Abraham’s relationship with God is how when God asked Abe to sacrifice Isaac, God actually said please in the original Hebrew, meaning this wasn’t a commandment and Abe could have freely refused if he wanted to.

What this implies though is even more interesting and good - that God does in fact value and respect our own will such that He can request us to do something difficult and we can refuse if we want to (so long as it’s not an obligation or command). We are given the freedom to be different from God in a way, to also have our own will and desires distinct from God’s without opposing God’s overall will!

This also has implications for detachment - detachment is often viewed as something bleak and cold, akin to weakening your freedom and becoming a puppet or glutton for pain who somehow no longer cares about anything. But what this shows is that this image of detachment is false - detachment is actually about hierarchy rather than exclusivism. Detachment is simply about training and disciplining ourselves to have the strength and resolve to follow God’s will and ability to give up something (whether it be a pleasure, possession, relationship, or anything else) if that’s necessary - it’s not that we are to have no preferences or ignore difficulties and be apathetic. In fact, having preferences is okay and is affirmed by the example God gave us of making a freely-refusable request to Abe!

So it’s okay to prefer things which please you and to avoid things which are difficult for you in principle - they only become sinful when we are too attached to them such that we can’t choose to do what is right and what is God’s will when needed.

This also reveals that it’s not sinful to desire something for yourself either - I’ve actually seen some people who have an excessively rigoristic view where it’s sinful to even desire something because you like it and we should only desire things for God’s glory, as if the two motives were in competition and not supposed to be in hierarchic harmony.

What do you guys think?
 
Last edited:
Noteworthy also about the Abe example is how this was this meant to counter the idea of child sacrifice - the prevalent attitude during Abe’s time was that CS was legitimate, whereas the whole episode with Isaac highlights God’s disliking of CS and is meant to do away with any last remnant of this on Abe’s part. If Abe refused, it’s likely God would have said his decision was justified and then would have told him of His own plan of atonement.
 
Last edited:
I have never heard it put as succinctly as you did. Very well done.
 
Thanks! I’m glad others share the same view and I’m not a lonely voice crying out in the wilderness!
 
The fascinating part, to me, is the word “please”. First time I had heard it. I know someone in my parish with a Masters in Scriptural Theology, and he has learned Hebrew; i will have to pass it by him.
 
Specifically, I recall it’s meant to be the particle “na” which means please as in “Take please your son, your only begotten”
 
I think reading Thomas á Kempis’ The Imitation of Christ teaches incredible lessons regarding detachment,
 
Knowing God can say please to Abe, You, Guys, Gals or any of his creation makes me think of the joy of Jesus Christ.

But also of the joy buzzer of Jesus Christ, as a metaphorical thought exercise. It’s comforting when God says Not. Personally, it’s astonishing should God say Now where God previously said Not.

The same God who made joy can also enjoy joy buzzer. Frightening for me.
 
NormalBeliever said:
So it’s okay to prefer things which please you and to avoid things which are difficult for you in principle
Click to expand...
It depends on what you’re preferring or avoiding.

If you’re being led into sin by either your preferences or your avoidance, then it’s not okay, it’s a problem.

If, on the other hand, your preference is for something that’s morally good or morally neutral, and your avoidance is likewise for something that’s morally bad/ questionable or morally neutral, then I agree with your statement.

You used Abraham for an example. Of course his preference as a caring father was NOT to sacrifice his son whom he had waited for a long time to have. I don’t think anyone would make an argument that “detachment” would require parents to not care if their kids are killed for a sacrifice or anything else.
NormalBeliever said:
This also reveals that it’s not sinful to desire something for yourself either - I’ve actually seen some people who have an excessively rigoristic view where it’s sinful to even desire something because you like it and we should only desire things for God’s glory,
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church has never taught that it’s sinful to desire some things for yourself in moderation. Even self-effacing saints practicing poverty in a religious order, like St. Padre Pio, usually enjoyed something pleasant once in a while, like a glass of beer. The Church is not “rigoristic” and indeed spiritual directors would likely counsel people against that kind of extreme thinking that we should never desire anything at all unless it’s for God’s glory.
 
  1. Agreed! I was only pointing out the beauty and wonder of this - God saying please to something difficult but not obligatory implies he values our free will in non-morally obligatory things which is wonderful! And that detachment doesn’t mean having no preferences that you would rather keep and choose instead! I myself said that it only applies when it’s not a commandment or obligation, which includes things that are sinful.
  2. Yes, that’s true! I was only pointing out that this is basically divine affirmation of the goodness of desiring something for yourself.
I’ve actually seen some unfortunately misguided people on these forums a few years ago claim that you shouldn’t even desire anything for yourself as a motive - so this example clarifies that and shows this attitude is false.
 
Last edited:
I used to worry about this “detachment” thing because for one thing, I was really attached to my husband and it was rather hard for me to picture being “detached” from him or not caring if he loved me, etc. especially since he had been a part of my life for a long time. But a few years ago, my husband died suddenly, so now I understand that “detachment” means that when something like that happens, I don’t get angry at God or stop praying or anything because he took away my husband. The same for my cats, I love them and miss them a lot when they pass away, but I have to trust God that he will take good care of them and just appreciate that God allowed me to have them for a while.
 
Exactly! Even Christ Himself cried when his friend Lazarus died, even though He was aware He would raise Laz soon! Detachment is simply keeping things as they are - when God takes first place everything else is in its proper place. In fact, without Him nothing would even have a place to begin with!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top