Was Abraham a "Good guy"?
Moderator: Moderators
-
ChaosBorders
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 1966
- Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:16 am
- Location: Austin
-
InTheFlesh
- Guru
- Posts: 1478
- Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 9:54 pm
Post #2
I guess it would depend on your definition of good guy.
From a biblical point of view,
the believer and unbeliever sin alike.
The difference between the two is faith.
From a biblical point of view,
the believer and unbeliever sin alike.
The difference between the two is faith.
Gen.6
[5] And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Prov.20
[6] Most men will proclaim every one his own goodness: but a faithful man who can find?
1Mac.2
[52] Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness?
Pss.150
[6] Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.
[6] Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.
-
cnorman18
Post #3
Jewish point of view: Abraham was a man like any other man. He was flawed, sometimes even egregiously so.
Moses was a murderer. David, the paradigmatic King, was an adulterer AND a murderer. Solomon was, in later years, an idolator and a brutal tyrant. The kings that followed him were, with few exceptions, execrable and contemptible "bad guys." Even the prophets are shown to be ordinary men, some obvious fanatics, some visionaries, some probably demented (Ezekiel, e.g.).
One of the remarkable things about the Biblical documents is that they depict the "heroes" of the Bible with all their warts, scars, and sins intact. "Good guy"? That's hardly the point. Avraham avinu -- "Abraham our father" -- was just a guy, like you and me. Jews don't even ask the title question here.
Moses was a murderer. David, the paradigmatic King, was an adulterer AND a murderer. Solomon was, in later years, an idolator and a brutal tyrant. The kings that followed him were, with few exceptions, execrable and contemptible "bad guys." Even the prophets are shown to be ordinary men, some obvious fanatics, some visionaries, some probably demented (Ezekiel, e.g.).
One of the remarkable things about the Biblical documents is that they depict the "heroes" of the Bible with all their warts, scars, and sins intact. "Good guy"? That's hardly the point. Avraham avinu -- "Abraham our father" -- was just a guy, like you and me. Jews don't even ask the title question here.
Post #4
There is more to say and a wider view Jewishly.
First the op has a valid topic. The central question about Abraham for modernity is the nature of the effect of the Binding of Isaac story on people...in terms of the idea of sacrificial violence. "Was Abraham a good guy" is a very appropriate question in view of needful questions about the use of religious violence. While many will want to argue the point, still broadly speaking, Abraham belongs to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam alike.
There is an Abrahamic problem in that all three faiths have interpreted the Binding of Isaac as a green light for religious martyrdom. Bruce Chilton's book "Abraham's Curse: The Roots of Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam" lays out the history and theological development of dysfunctional martrydom theology and practice in each of the faiths based on....a faulty reading of the original text. As Chilton points out, it is utter human tragedy that all three faiths ignore the fact that both Abraham and Isaac backed down the mountain of sacrifice. My own rabbi complains that no one will listen to him pointing out that there is slip of the pen in the original text foreshadowing that Isaac will indeed not be sacrificed (that Abraham had no intention of sacrificing) when the text states:
Abraham Tested
1 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!�
“Here I am,� he replied.
2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.�
3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and loaded his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. 4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 5 He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.�
We will come back to you. How are these words ignored as words of faith for all three Abrahamic religions??? Secularists have an utter moral right to question THIS.
And it MUST be a Jewish question as well as Christian and Muslim...given what is at stake with the next war ever on the horizon.
Jacob Neusner has the following to say about Chilton's book and topic:
BOOK REVIEW
Bruce Chilton, Abraham’s Curse.
Child Sacrifice in the Legacies of the West.
(New York, 2008: Doubleday.)
By Jacob Neusner
Out of the religious resources of three distinct traditions Chilton forms a single theological system, a theology that makes the same normative statement for Judaism, Christianity and Islam. That single truth claim is sustained out of the revealed resources of the three traditions respectively. Bearing the subscript, The Roots of Violence in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, this remarkable book turns narrative historical study into constructive theology, random facts of times past into a system of eternal truth. Specifically, Chilton traces the doctrine of martyrdom in the history of Judaism, Christianity and Islam and transforms historical facts into probative theological propositions for the three monotheisms severally and jointly. It is not every day that a historian of Christianity undertakes a theological task and not only for Christianity but for Judaism and Islam as well.
Chilton takes as his narrative the accounts of the binding of Isaac (Genesis 22) in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Abraham is commanded by God to take his son Isaac to Moriah and to offer him as a sacrifice, and Abraham obediently makes the journey, stopping only when a new instruction substitutes a ram for the boy. But Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his son and Isaac was ready to be sacrificed. The issue embodied in the narrative is martyrdom, dying for God. Isaac or for Islam his half-brother Ishmael represents one prepared to give his life for God, and Christianity follows suit in seeing Jesus as the realization of the sacrifice. He says, by examining the Aqedah and how it has been developed and deployed within the Abrahamic religions is hope to lay bare the sacrificial roots of violence and the driving force behind martyrdom. The shank of the book then unfolds in three parts, dealing with Judaism, then Christianity, and finally Islam. The parts are historical and scholarly narratives, but as is clear if Chilton does not shape the facts he also does not propose to surrender to them without standing in judgment on them.
Martyrdom is the Jewish invention, deriving from the time of the Maccabees, who made Abraham’s offering a model for all Israelites, presenting a form of child sacrifice as the ideal of faithful devotion. That model proved influential in the time of the Crusades, from 1095, when Jewish families committed suicide rather than give way to the Crusaders’ demand that they convert to Christianity. Chilton’s account of the Maccabees relies on first class historical scholarship. But the point he makes transcends the past and speaks to the future: God’s approval for the martyr’s death would be signaled supernaturally by physical resurrection.
The blood of the lamb formed Christianity’s reading of the same narrative, now the self-sacrifice of Jesus in the model of Isaac for the salvation of humanity: Every time they eat the sacrificial meal he taught them, they bring his remembrance before God, even as they prepare themselves to follow his example. The epistle to the Hebrews moreover portrayed Jesus’ sacrifice as unlike any other, whether of an animal or a human martyr: Jesus was God’s son, his death a divine offering from God to God and the only perfect sacrifice. This made becoming a martyr central to Christianity: martyrdom was the very substance of the faith. The first three centuries of the Common Era witnessed the Christians’ realization of their faith in martyrdom a s self-sacrifice in the flesh. Chilton reviews the literature of martyrdom and the theology that emerged from it.
The Islamic Aqedah is a living tradition that pushes past the limitations of any single text to convey a burning vision that glorifies the martyr’s sacrifice. Ibrahim consulted his son. The choice of Ibrahim was sacrifice. That of Ismael was self-sacrifice, martyrdom. The readiness to submit not to one’s own ambition, but to the imperatives of Allah lies at the heart of Islam, and that is the picture that emerges from the Quran’s reading of Genesis 22. But Chilton treats the three religions together: Each Abrahamic religion can arm itself with the conviction that its innocent victim, Isaac or Christ or Ismail, models God’s desire for how his people should sacrifice themselves for him.
The contemporary program of the book and its theological message come at the end. Chilton does not mince words: the teaching of jihad struggle in the way of Allah has put Ibrahim’s and Isma’il’s obedience to Allah into practice by means of military confrontations with those who are unfaithful to Allah. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all offer models of martyrdom: the Crusader sheds his blood to celebrate the redemptive power of Christ’s blood at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Jewish children of the Rhineland are new sacrifices of Isaac, which exceed the devotion Genesis attributed to Abraham. The paradigm of Ismail at the time of Ibrahim’s offering equates death in the context of struggle to the deepest obedience to Allah. The point of the narrative is clearly stated: the time is now for the Abrahamic religions to find a safe way down from Mount Moriah. The contemporary theological chapter with which the book closes responds to the contemporary challenges to religion and challenges in the name of religion. Judaism, Christianity and Islam have answers to these challenges: human beings are the crown of creation; parents have no right to take the lives of their children, much less other people’s children. Yet these rich corrective traditions are largely ignored. We have no human future if we insist on remaining on Mount Moriah.
That theological proposition is rescued from banality by the morning headlines. The Judaism that motivated the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, the Christianity that surfaced in the Oklahoma City bombing, and the form of Islam that finds its triumph in 9/11 all situate themselves on Moriah.
This work of prodigious learning and compelling argument demonstrates that the three monotheisms do concur on a fundamental proposition of divine service.
*This review also appears in the National Jewish Post, Long Island Jewish World, and the Jewish Journal.
Jacob Neusner, a professor of the history and theology of Judaism at Bard College, is the author of A Rabbi Talks With Jesus (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2000).
First the op has a valid topic. The central question about Abraham for modernity is the nature of the effect of the Binding of Isaac story on people...in terms of the idea of sacrificial violence. "Was Abraham a good guy" is a very appropriate question in view of needful questions about the use of religious violence. While many will want to argue the point, still broadly speaking, Abraham belongs to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam alike.
There is an Abrahamic problem in that all three faiths have interpreted the Binding of Isaac as a green light for religious martyrdom. Bruce Chilton's book "Abraham's Curse: The Roots of Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam" lays out the history and theological development of dysfunctional martrydom theology and practice in each of the faiths based on....a faulty reading of the original text. As Chilton points out, it is utter human tragedy that all three faiths ignore the fact that both Abraham and Isaac backed down the mountain of sacrifice. My own rabbi complains that no one will listen to him pointing out that there is slip of the pen in the original text foreshadowing that Isaac will indeed not be sacrificed (that Abraham had no intention of sacrificing) when the text states:
Abraham Tested
1 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!�
“Here I am,� he replied.
2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.�
3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and loaded his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. 4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 5 He said to his servants, “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you.�
We will come back to you. How are these words ignored as words of faith for all three Abrahamic religions??? Secularists have an utter moral right to question THIS.
And it MUST be a Jewish question as well as Christian and Muslim...given what is at stake with the next war ever on the horizon.
Jacob Neusner has the following to say about Chilton's book and topic:
BOOK REVIEW
Bruce Chilton, Abraham’s Curse.
Child Sacrifice in the Legacies of the West.
(New York, 2008: Doubleday.)
By Jacob Neusner
Out of the religious resources of three distinct traditions Chilton forms a single theological system, a theology that makes the same normative statement for Judaism, Christianity and Islam. That single truth claim is sustained out of the revealed resources of the three traditions respectively. Bearing the subscript, The Roots of Violence in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, this remarkable book turns narrative historical study into constructive theology, random facts of times past into a system of eternal truth. Specifically, Chilton traces the doctrine of martyrdom in the history of Judaism, Christianity and Islam and transforms historical facts into probative theological propositions for the three monotheisms severally and jointly. It is not every day that a historian of Christianity undertakes a theological task and not only for Christianity but for Judaism and Islam as well.
Chilton takes as his narrative the accounts of the binding of Isaac (Genesis 22) in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Abraham is commanded by God to take his son Isaac to Moriah and to offer him as a sacrifice, and Abraham obediently makes the journey, stopping only when a new instruction substitutes a ram for the boy. But Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his son and Isaac was ready to be sacrificed. The issue embodied in the narrative is martyrdom, dying for God. Isaac or for Islam his half-brother Ishmael represents one prepared to give his life for God, and Christianity follows suit in seeing Jesus as the realization of the sacrifice. He says, by examining the Aqedah and how it has been developed and deployed within the Abrahamic religions is hope to lay bare the sacrificial roots of violence and the driving force behind martyrdom. The shank of the book then unfolds in three parts, dealing with Judaism, then Christianity, and finally Islam. The parts are historical and scholarly narratives, but as is clear if Chilton does not shape the facts he also does not propose to surrender to them without standing in judgment on them.
Martyrdom is the Jewish invention, deriving from the time of the Maccabees, who made Abraham’s offering a model for all Israelites, presenting a form of child sacrifice as the ideal of faithful devotion. That model proved influential in the time of the Crusades, from 1095, when Jewish families committed suicide rather than give way to the Crusaders’ demand that they convert to Christianity. Chilton’s account of the Maccabees relies on first class historical scholarship. But the point he makes transcends the past and speaks to the future: God’s approval for the martyr’s death would be signaled supernaturally by physical resurrection.
The blood of the lamb formed Christianity’s reading of the same narrative, now the self-sacrifice of Jesus in the model of Isaac for the salvation of humanity: Every time they eat the sacrificial meal he taught them, they bring his remembrance before God, even as they prepare themselves to follow his example. The epistle to the Hebrews moreover portrayed Jesus’ sacrifice as unlike any other, whether of an animal or a human martyr: Jesus was God’s son, his death a divine offering from God to God and the only perfect sacrifice. This made becoming a martyr central to Christianity: martyrdom was the very substance of the faith. The first three centuries of the Common Era witnessed the Christians’ realization of their faith in martyrdom a s self-sacrifice in the flesh. Chilton reviews the literature of martyrdom and the theology that emerged from it.
The Islamic Aqedah is a living tradition that pushes past the limitations of any single text to convey a burning vision that glorifies the martyr’s sacrifice. Ibrahim consulted his son. The choice of Ibrahim was sacrifice. That of Ismael was self-sacrifice, martyrdom. The readiness to submit not to one’s own ambition, but to the imperatives of Allah lies at the heart of Islam, and that is the picture that emerges from the Quran’s reading of Genesis 22. But Chilton treats the three religions together: Each Abrahamic religion can arm itself with the conviction that its innocent victim, Isaac or Christ or Ismail, models God’s desire for how his people should sacrifice themselves for him.
The contemporary program of the book and its theological message come at the end. Chilton does not mince words: the teaching of jihad struggle in the way of Allah has put Ibrahim’s and Isma’il’s obedience to Allah into practice by means of military confrontations with those who are unfaithful to Allah. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all offer models of martyrdom: the Crusader sheds his blood to celebrate the redemptive power of Christ’s blood at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Jewish children of the Rhineland are new sacrifices of Isaac, which exceed the devotion Genesis attributed to Abraham. The paradigm of Ismail at the time of Ibrahim’s offering equates death in the context of struggle to the deepest obedience to Allah. The point of the narrative is clearly stated: the time is now for the Abrahamic religions to find a safe way down from Mount Moriah. The contemporary theological chapter with which the book closes responds to the contemporary challenges to religion and challenges in the name of religion. Judaism, Christianity and Islam have answers to these challenges: human beings are the crown of creation; parents have no right to take the lives of their children, much less other people’s children. Yet these rich corrective traditions are largely ignored. We have no human future if we insist on remaining on Mount Moriah.
That theological proposition is rescued from banality by the morning headlines. The Judaism that motivated the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, the Christianity that surfaced in the Oklahoma City bombing, and the form of Islam that finds its triumph in 9/11 all situate themselves on Moriah.
This work of prodigious learning and compelling argument demonstrates that the three monotheisms do concur on a fundamental proposition of divine service.
*This review also appears in the National Jewish Post, Long Island Jewish World, and the Jewish Journal.
Jacob Neusner, a professor of the history and theology of Judaism at Bard College, is the author of A Rabbi Talks With Jesus (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2000).
-
cnorman18
Re: Was Abraham a "Good guy"?
Post #5I didn't think the OP was referring specifically to the Akeidah, but to Abraham's character in general.
If you want to go deeper into one particular incident out of a very great many -- one could choose his bargaining with God over Sodom, e.g., or his attempt to pass off Sarah as his sister -- twice -- have at it; but I think I'll decline further comment myself.
Simple question, and I gave a simple answer.ChaosBorders wrote:Should Abraham be considered a 'good guy'? Why or why not?
If you want to go deeper into one particular incident out of a very great many -- one could choose his bargaining with God over Sodom, e.g., or his attempt to pass off Sarah as his sister -- twice -- have at it; but I think I'll decline further comment myself.
-
cnorman18
Post #7
Don't misunderstand; there was certainly nothing wrong with your post, and in fact I found it fascinating. If anybody on this forum has been known to write a dissertation in answer to a short question, that would be me. I was just responding to "there's more to say" and opting out of pursuing the discussion further on my own part.Jonah wrote:op did not refer to anything specific. I did. I give myself permission to do that.
-
sleepyhead
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 897
- Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:57 pm
- Location: Grass Valley CA
Re: Was Abraham a "Good guy"?
Post #8Hello chaosborders,ChaosBorders wrote:Should Abraham be considered a 'good guy'? Why or why not?
I would say that Abraham was the one God chose rather than him being good or bad. He had the qualities that God was looking for in making his choice.
My understanding of the OT incidents involving God and the human community is that he can't become involved in humanity as a whole because he would strike them down dead. He has to work through individuals which leaves a buffer zone between him and the community.
May all your naps be joyous occasions.
Post #9
if any extraterrestrial entity asked me to sacrifice my child i'd tell them to get bent,i'm not sure abraham as a character in a story could be considered a "good guy" for being so willing to kill his son.
-
cnorman18
Post #10
Like I said; in Jewish tradition (aka "in the story"), Abraham was neither a good man nor a bad man; he was just a man, with flaws and failings like any other man. Many of the sages and rabbis of old, as well as the present day, think that Abraham ought to have told God to stuff it, in effect. Others say that it may have been a case of Abraham testing God, to see if He would really make him go through with it.horiturk wrote:if any extraterrestrial entity asked me to sacrifice my child i'd tell them to get bent,i'm not sure abraham as a character in a story could be considered a "good guy" for being so willing to kill his son.
This story is one of the most hotly debated, and for the longest period of time, of any in the Bible. One of the factors that isn't often considered is that Isaac was an adult at this time, in the tradition; he was big enough to carry the wood, anyway, and he seems to have been willing as well. That's a matter for debate, too, but in any case the story is not as simple and easily disposed of as many seem to argue.
