Abraham ~ Bruce Feiler ~ 3/03 ~ Religion Related Books







From Jerusalem, the touchstone of faith, they divide. - Christians turn north, today is the last Friday before Christmas. - Jews turn south; today is the last Friday of Hanukkah. - Muslims turn east, today is the last Friday of Ramadan.


"I will make your name great,
And you shall be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you
And curse him that curses you;
And all the families of the earth
Shall bless themselves by you."
----Genesis 12:2-3

ALL THREE RELIGIONS:
  • agree that Abraham was the first monotheist
  • view Abraham's childhood in a similar way
  • agree that God spoke to Abraham
  • agree that God speaks to every person who yearns
  • share a love of Jerusalem as a holy site

    LINKS

    Map of Abraham's Journey:2000 BC || Jewish Tradition relating to Abraham || Sources of the Qu'ran || Abraham of the Christian Bible || Holy Land pictures ||Dome of the Rock || 99 NAMES OF God ||The Fertile Crescent || Fertile Crescent II || Abraham-FieryFurnace || Midrash || Ziggurat || Sacred Texts" || Cave of Machpelah in Hebron || Desert Fathers || Beersheba"



    Discussion Leaders: Ella and Harold

    - lst week  - pgs. 3 - 54
    - 2nd week - pgs. 57 - 110
    - 3rd week - pgs. 113 - 185
    - 4th week - pgs. 190 - 218
  • Ella Gibbons
    January 23, 2003 - 02:43 pm
    Harold and I want to welcome all those interested in learning with us the source of the three great religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - at least, in this author's eyes. Feiler has written a number of books pertaining to the histories contained in the Bible and we can each either agree or disagree as to his premises.

    If nothing else, we can learn more about Abraham and his descendants than we perhaps know at the present time.

    This is a history book, per se, and not a discourse on the Bible.

    Lou2
    January 23, 2003 - 02:55 pm
    Would love to explore this book with you all... My husband has read it 3 times!! And then ran out and got Walking the Bible. If I can manage to "borrow" it from him, I'll join you all in March.

    Lou

    Ella Gibbons
    January 23, 2003 - 02:43 pm
    Harold and I want to welcome all those interested in learning with us the source of the three great religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - at least, in this author's eyes. Feiler has written a number of books pertaining to the histories contained in the Bible and we can each either agree or disagree as to his premises.

    If nothing else, we can learn more about Abraham and his descendants than we perhaps know at the present time.

    This is a history book, per se, and not a discourse on the Bible.

    Lou2
    January 23, 2003 - 02:55 pm
    Would love to explore this book with you all... My husband has read it 3 times!! And then ran out and got Walking the Bible. If I can manage to "borrow" it from him, I'll join you all in March.

    Lou

    Ella Gibbons
    January 24, 2003 - 09:48 am
    Great, Lou! We'll look forward to having you among us and your husband, who is no doubt, an expert on, not only this book, but Feiler's other books can join in either by himself or via your posts!

    Harold Arnold
    January 24, 2003 - 11:34 am
    This is a good book and so easy to read with large clear print on a subject that comes at just the right time- how three prominent living religions now at war or near war with one another, share identical root in their common Patriarch, Abraham. For more information Click Here to read reviews by critics and readers from the B & N catalog page. I note the title is available in a hard cover binding for just $14.37, a rare book bargain these days.

    Ella and I invite everyone here to discuss this book beginning March 1st.

    Ella Gibbons
    January 24, 2003 - 03:50 pm
    Today I brought home from my Library the audio book - WALKING THE BIBLE - by Feiler also. It looks so great - I'll listen to it when I'm on the treadmill daily - on the back it describes the book in part by saying "Feeling a desire to reconnect to the bible, award-winning author Bruce Feiler set out on a perilous, 10,000 mile journey retracing the Five Books of Moses through the desert.

    "One part adventure story, one part archaeological detective work, one part spiritual exploration, WALKING THE BIBLE, vividly recounts an inspiring personal odyssey."

    Harold, I should have read your post before I went shopping today because I paid $24 for the book - ABRAHAM! That will teach me to do more shopping on the Internet ---

    Looking forward to this!

    GingerWright
    January 27, 2003 - 03:23 pm

    Ella and Harold I picked up Abraham from the Library today and will have it for two weeks so I hope to take Notes and be able to post or I will check it out again. We shall see. Now to put my name on the Roster.

    GingerWright
    January 27, 2003 - 03:42 pm

    Ella and Harold Lou2 and Ginger just one to go and we will be to go.

    Harold Arnold
    January 27, 2003 - 04:02 pm
    Thank you Ginger! You are most welcome. Who will be next to make our quorum? One more or three or four more, there is room for anyone interested.

    BaBi
    January 28, 2003 - 12:35 pm
    Ella, I clicked on your link in the Islam forum, and wound up in the Bush/Powell discussion. Thankfully, you had directed us to SN Non-fiction.

    Certainly Abraham can be considered the 'father' of three religions, but I'm puzzled as to what Mr. Feiler might consider the 'untold story'. I thought all there was to know re. Abraham was pretty much available. As to whether the three religions can live together in peace, well, I WISH, but I must doubt it. The resentments and bitterness go all the way back to Abraham and Sarah. ...Babi

    Ella Gibbons
    January 28, 2003 - 01:03 pm
    Oh, heavens, BABI - did I do that? Oh, I must immediately go and correct it~ you see where my mind is these days!!!!

    This is a historical account of the three religions, I think you would enjoy the book. Join us.

    Ella Gibbons
    January 28, 2003 - 01:21 pm
    BABI - thanks so much for calling that error to my attention. I shall be more careful in the future - they have all been corrected now.

    Persian
    January 29, 2003 - 05:12 pm
    ELLA - Count me in for the discussion about ABRAHAM.

    Ella Gibbons
    January 29, 2003 - 06:04 pm
    MAHLIA! Delighted to welcome you here. See you in March and bring along others that may be interested! This is going to be a good and timely disclussion.

    GingerWright
    January 30, 2003 - 01:31 am
    Ella Yes you said it right Timely as if it was ever needed and it was but now is trully the time for people to understand we do love the Same God.

    Ella Gibbons
    January 31, 2003 - 09:44 pm
    WHAT IS THIS? NO MORE ARE INTERESTED IN TAKING THIS TOUR THROUGH BIBLICAL HISTORY TO WHERE WE CAN DISCOVER ABRAHAM, HIS SINS, HIS TRIUMPHS, HIS CONNECTION TO ALL THE FAITHS OF OUR MODERN WORLD, HIS CONNECTION TO GOD - THROUGH THE EYES OF A FASCINATING AUTHOR. BELOW IS A VERY SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE MAN WE KNOW AS ABRAHAM - COME GET ACQUAINTED!

    Abram ("exalted father"). His Name Means "Father of many" or "father of multitudes."

    His homes were Ur of the Chaldeans; Haran; the land of Canaan; Egypt; Beersheba in the land of the Philistines.

    His family consisted of a wife named Sarah and a son named Isaac. He also had a son named Ishmael born through Sarah's maid Hagar.

    His ocupation was a shepherd & herdsman and he is the one to whom and through whom God promised blessing to all nations.

    When we get a couple more people interested, we will make a permanent heading and put a map of all Abraham's journeys in it, plus whatever clickables we can find on the Internet of interest!

    Ann Alden
    February 2, 2003 - 10:33 am
    Well, Ella, if you will quit yelling at us all, I will sign up for this promising discussion. Hahaha! Does that make a quorum?

    GingerWright
    February 2, 2003 - 11:02 am
    Ann You have me actually laughing out loud telling Ella to quit YELLING at us. Now Ella behave. Yes we have a quorum. 5 so far including you and many more to come I Hope.

    Ella Gibbons
    February 2, 2003 - 06:13 pm
    Me, yelling! Why, I'm the calmest person on the Internet! hahaha Am delighted you are joining us, Ann. We are all looking forward to a good discussion. See you on March lst and now we will prepare a permanent header. Thanks!

    GingerWright
    February 2, 2003 - 10:46 pm
    Ella, Harold I have been thru 1/3 the book as I have it from the library so will check it out Again when we get closer to the discussion. I have liked what I have read so far. I do hope this Book can Help bring Peace among us All. Thanks for leading this discusion. Hope to post but you know me getting caught up in what other posters say.

    BaBi
    February 5, 2003 - 03:17 pm
    Oh, boy! I've signed up to read and discuss both "ABRAHAM" and Shakespeare's "JULIUS CAESAR" at the same time. That's going to keep my nose in the books, isn't it? I think I'd better try and get a head start toward the end of February, so you all don't run away and leave me mumbling and stuttering. (*-*( ...Babi

    GingerWright
    February 5, 2003 - 09:41 pm
    Babi Hi there I know what you mean so much to read and do and so little time compared to the time we have spent on this earth. I am so glad to see you here.

    Ella Gibbons
    February 6, 2003 - 07:52 am
    WELCOME, BABI, but wouldn't it be boring if we didn't have any at all? The other side of the coin!

    So glad to have you, sometime soon we will put our permanent heading up.

    windancer
    February 6, 2003 - 08:39 am
    Good morning, I've been wanting to get involved with a "book club" and think this would be a wonderful place to start. So, YES, I'd be here and interested.

    kiwi lady
    February 6, 2003 - 01:43 pm
    Thanks to a lovely lady from SN I can join in this discussion - she has gifted me the book and it will arrive in time for the start of this discussion. I cannot wait to start. It is a timely book to discuss.

    Carolyn from NZ

    Harold Arnold
    February 6, 2003 - 03:34 pm
    Windancer: I think you picked a fine book for your start. We look forward to reading your takes on this great book. Likewise Kiwi lady we will appreciate having your perspective on this timely subject from your great Country across our globe.

    Persian
    February 6, 2003 - 08:10 pm
    I noticed when I received my copy of ABRAHAM today that it is also available in CD and audio casettes, if anyone is interested.

    LouiseJEvans
    February 8, 2003 - 02:43 pm
    I bought the book a few days ago but haven't settled down to read it as yet.

    GingerWright
    February 8, 2003 - 03:51 pm
    Hi Louise I am almost done reading Abraham and must take it back to Library Monday so must get cracking. Hope to get it back for this discussion. Good to see You here.

    GingerWright
    February 8, 2003 - 03:53 pm
    Hi Persian I am looking forward to your posts.

    LouiseJEvans
    February 9, 2003 - 10:26 pm
    I bought my copy because the library's copy was checked out and I didn't want to be put on the waiting list.

    GingerWright
    February 9, 2003 - 10:37 pm
    Louise Good for you. I have read it from the library and take it back tomorrow weather permiting, If not of couse a fine. I hope to get it back for the discussion, but I wonder about that. Ginger

    LouiseJEvans
    February 9, 2003 - 10:44 pm
    I was just noticing the time and date of these posts. Normally I am sleeping at this time but I am not sleepy. My clock says that it is 12:45 a.m. and it is now February 10. Isn't it wonderful that people who live in several time zones can communicate as if they were next door neighbors.

    GingerWright
    February 9, 2003 - 10:47 pm
    Louise Yes I love the commuication on Senior Net. Our times are the same so must go to bed also. nite, nite,

    georgehd
    February 11, 2003 - 01:00 pm
    I will join the group reading Abraham in March (Senior Net still does not show a starting date). My copy of the book should arrive next week; I live in Grand Cayman and it takes a little time to get books. I will be in the US the first ten days of March and probably will not be able to participate during that time. However, if I get any of the book read before I leave, I will try to post something about the first 54 pages. Currently I am in the Life of Pi discussion group and heartily recommend this book to all.

    Harold Arnold
    February 11, 2003 - 09:11 pm
    Georgehd, the discussion is scheduled to begin March 1st. If you are not available that date it will be no problem. You will be welcome to join us when you return. We appreciate having you aboard.

    Ella is currently away on a trip, but is scheduled to be back for the start date.

    MortKail
    February 14, 2003 - 02:24 pm
    I just got a copy of Abraham from the library today (I reserved it a week ago and thought I wouldn't get it until March). I have to return it in two weeks (Feb. 28) and won't be able to renew because others are waiting.

    I want to participate in this discussion, but not on a page-by-page basis...Just from memory; what's left of it. Morty

    Harold Arnold
    February 15, 2003 - 08:48 am
    Mort, that's cool, The book is pretty easy reading and with a few notes and after just a short several weeks delay, memory should be sufficient for your participation. There are also the many Abrahamic stories on the web, and I suppose the original source document of your choice that all are encouraged to read.

    Lou2
    February 17, 2003 - 06:02 am
    I've finished the first section of this little book and can only say WOW!!! I can hardly believe the number of "profound" statements I've already found. And so readable... no wonder Dave read it 3 times! Wish we could "assign" this one to everyone!

    I look forward to our conversation... I'm betting it'll be a rousing one.

    Lou

    Lou2
    February 17, 2003 - 06:45 am
    I enjoyed Bruce Feiler's web site...

    www.brucefeiler.com

    if you'd care to have a look. Or has everyone here gone and I'm just now discovering it???

    Lou

    Harold Arnold
    February 17, 2003 - 09:58 am
    Thank you Lou2 for the Bruce Feiler web site address. Click Here for easy access.

    Hats
    February 18, 2003 - 05:22 am
    Good morning, Ella and Harold,

    Thank you, Lou2. I have been enjoying the Bruce Feiler site. I have ordered the book from the library. I signed up for Julius Ceasar too. Then, Abraham caught my interest. I would like to learn more about both of these interesting men. I have heard about Bruce Feiler's books, but I have never had the chance to read one. Looking forward to the discussion.

    pedln
    February 18, 2003 - 04:14 pm
    I've just ordered the book from Amazon, but since it's free shipping it may not get here until March. In the meantime I'll try to keep up with the links and the discussion. The Feiler Web Page that Lou found looks like a good one.

    I didn't realize that he was the author of "Learning to Bow," which we had in our school library -- about his experiences teaching English in Japan.

    Looking forward to the discussion.

    Harold Arnold
    February 19, 2003 - 09:55 am
    We look forward to having you with us Pedin. As you say, if your book is a bit late, no problem.

    Is there any one else out there who is interested in participating? There is still time for you to get the book and participate!

    Diane Church
    February 19, 2003 - 12:45 pm
    Harold, I've reserved a copy at the library but the ones ahead of me are taking too much time! I'll jump in as soon as those slowpokes finish and I get my copy.

    Harold Arnold
    February 19, 2003 - 01:06 pm
    That's great Diane! It appears we are going to have quite a group for a good discussion. Ella is currently on a trip and plans to be back as we begin on March 1st.

    kiwi lady
    February 19, 2003 - 02:39 pm
    My book arrived yesterday all the way from Barnes and Noble USA thanks to a very kind Snetter who bought it for me. Very efficient shipping by Barnes and Noble. I have now got plenty of time to prepare for this discussion.

    I am babysitting two year old Grace this morning and this afternoon its Americas Cup Racing so I will not be able to look at it until tonight.

    Looking forward to participating.

    Carolyn from New Zealand

    Harold Arnold
    February 19, 2003 - 04:57 pm
    Kiwi Lady, I'm glad to hear that the book made it to New Zeland. And thanks for the Comment on the Americas Cup race. I saw a bit of one of the races the other day on ESPN. Apparently the current series now in progress is between New Zeland as Defenders of the cup title and a Swiss chalenger team. I was surprised to find the Swiss team is currently ahead 3 to 0. I think the current series will be decided when one team wins five out of nine races. Click Here for the Official Site Of The Americas Cup.

    kiwi lady
    February 19, 2003 - 05:44 pm
    Not surprising they have half the team of New Zealanders from the last cup. There are only 2 Swiss on the boat. Big Joke. If they win its not a Swiss win as the key people on the boat are all NZers. They took our technology with them. The defectors are not popular here in NZ. Both skippers are NZers. They will not have won the cup only bought it with a Swiss Bankers millions.

    Carolyn

    BaBi
    February 26, 2003 - 07:52 am
    I liked the Aish.Com link so well I added it to my list of favorites. Between it and my Jewish ex-DIL, I will have great resources for my "explain, please" syndrome on Jewish questions. For questions on Islam, of course, I tug at Mahlia's sleeve. ...Babi

    winniejc
    February 27, 2003 - 01:57 pm
    this should be a very interesting discussion and-who knows-i may just join in. my sister ella would like that as she is the discussion leader

    Ella Gibbons
    February 27, 2003 - 03:13 pm
    Welcome, Winifred Jean! Yes, indeed, my older sister who just bought a webtv and learned to operate it! Congrats to you and I hope you can get the book at the Library and join in, it's going to be a wonderful discussion; great group of people here; great book and I am so looking forward to this opportunity to meet all these participants on Saturday, the lst day of March - a harbinger of spring perhaps?

    Thanks to all of you for your interest; Harold and I are so pleased to be with you.

    GingerWright
    February 27, 2003 - 06:00 pm
    winniejc

    Ah another Webtver, Nice to see you.

    Ginger

    georgehd
    February 27, 2003 - 07:51 pm
    I will not be able to participate in the discussion early in March but should come on line the week of the 10th. I do have the book and have read about 150 pages.

    Ella Gibbons
    February 28, 2003 - 10:19 am
    That's fine, George, you will be able to catch up with us and we'll be looking forward to your posts! Thanks for letting us know.

    BaBi
    February 28, 2003 - 02:04 pm
    I got my copy of "Abraham" today, and have started reading. Like the way it begins.

    What is a WebTV? (Never mind; I don't really need to know.) ../Babi

    Ann Alden
    February 28, 2003 - 02:37 pm
    In Dec 2001 copy of National Geographic there was a good map of Abraham's journey that goes with an article about Abraham. I looked for it as it had the path of Abraham marked clearly. Here is a link to that article and if you scroll down about halfway, on the left is a link to a printable version of that map. I thought some of us might enjoy having it to look at while reading this incredible book. Its prints out very nicely. When you bring up the page, type in Abraham and choose "title" in the results menu and choose 1995-now for date. This will take you to another page where you must click on the magazine article link and then click on the online version of the article. Now!! you can download the map. Slightly complicated but worth the trouble. Abraham's Journey

    At the bottom of the article are some promising links to different articles and histories of the different faiths. I particularly think you would enjoy reading about the "Dome of the Rock" and its history. The photos of the Dome inside and out are quite beautiful.

    Harold Arnold
    February 28, 2003 - 04:26 pm
    I was finallly successful in locating the National Geographic link with the map Ann described above and thought I could provide a direst link to it. But I was wrong the supposed direct link required the same procedure Ann discribed.

    The link leads to what appears to be a special web condensed version of the article with links to 6 pictures the last of which is the printable map ofthe journey of Abraham. The story of the article is l;imited to the story of the birth of Ishmeal and his position as a foundation of Islam.

    Harold Arnold
    February 28, 2003 - 05:04 pm
    Ann I think this will get a direct connection to the Page you recommented Click Here.

    The map is the last of several jpg picture in the left hand column.

    Harold Arnold
    February 28, 2003 - 05:16 pm
    It didn't work, my link led to the same place as Ann's. The following is a more explicit step by step procedure:

    1 click ann's link

    2 In the "find Link" box enter Abraham. In the "Date Limit" Box use arrow icon to show "1995 to date" in box. In the "Find Results In" box, Key Word Anywhere" should be highlighted.

    3 Click "Search"

    4 Scroll down the page to click on "Abraham, Journey of Faith." You will get the web Condensation of the Article. including links to the six pictures.

    Note you can repeat this procedure to reach a second related article in the same issue.

    Diane Church
    February 28, 2003 - 05:41 pm
    I'm very afraid that my library will not come up with my copy of Abraham until this discussion is pretty far along (if not done!). BUT, I thought some might enjoy hearing of another book by Feiler called Walking The Bible (A Journey by Land through the Five Books of Moses). This sounds like a book that I would like to have read first, or even concurrently with Abraham. And, darn it all, my copy of A Life with Pi also just arrived, the very day the SN discussion is closing.

    Oh, for another set or two of eyes, brains, etc. and no chores at all! I will be following the posts here and know they will only make me more anxious to read the book. Lucky guys!

    winniejc
    February 28, 2003 - 05:44 pm
    hi ella I did find Sr Net and allon my own after you put it in "favorites file" see I learn something new everyday. All of you are going to learn a lot in this book discussion on Abraham Should be interesting. I will wwatch from the sidelines for awhile. Later Jeanne

    Ella Gibbons
    February 28, 2003 - 09:34 pm
    WELCOME EVERYONE TO OUR DISCUSSION OF ABRAHAM! HAROLD AND I ARE SO ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT THIS BOOK, THIS DISCUSSION AND ALL OF YOU WHO HAVE SHOWN AN INTEREST. THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR PARTICIPATING.

    And as I type the name of Abraham, I'm wondering why all of you decided to read this book – what was your interest? Did you know before seeing the title that Abraham was the father of the world's three great religions – Christianity, Judaism and Islam?

    I didn't! If someone had asked me who Abraham was I would have answered he was a figure that came up early in the Bible and was asked by God to sacrifice his son. That's about the sum of my knowledge of the man before reading this book. I do remember that Abraham was willing to murder his own son and I am compelled to say right off that I find that unbelievable!

    So, you see, all of you will have the job of convincing me, or conversely me convincing you, that any part of this book is believable or truthful. I come to the discussion, however, with an open mind and a willingness to discuss with candor all of the events that Feiler believes took place in ancient times and I'm certain that all of you feel the same.

    First we need to establish a few facts and considerations. The author uses the terms B.C.E. (before the Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era) "in keeping with long-standing academic custom and recent trends in popular writing."

    As in all Our book discussions we ask that you acknowledge other posters and their comments and that you stay with the Schedule of Discussion that is listed in the heading. If you have finished the book, please do not discuss chapters beyond this schedule as that makes it difficult to keep the group on the same subject.

    Our first week we will read and discuss through Page 54, but to begin let's all answer briefly the question – what was your interest in reading this book? And what is your interpretation of the verses in the heading from Genesis 12:2-3? Are these verses the same in all bibles – the Koran, Torah and the Christian?

    Harold will be looking in and posting early in the morning and I'm off to bed.

    Lou2
    March 1, 2003 - 06:35 am
    Abraham came into our home when our daughter bought it and we borrowed it… so far, she's only seen the cover and heard her dad and I talking about it… bless her!! Our thoughts have been: If Abraham is the foundation of three religions, can he somehow help our poor world find a way to peace? Can a study of Abraham help find a way through the mine fields, literal and figurative, of the Middle East? What does that mean to me? How would an understanding of the commonalities and differences of views on Abraham help me to make a difference?

    My interpretation of the Genesis verses is quite literal. God made his name great, God blessed Abraham, and through Abraham God blessed us all.

    I have a working knowledge of the Christian Bible, but no knowledge of either the Torah or the Koran. But we do have copies of The Jewish Bible (that's the title on the book) and the Qur'an… As far as I can tell, the verses are the same in the Christian Bible and the Jewish Bible. Looking through the Qur'an's index I can't find a similar passage, but I did find this:

    Surah 2: 124: And remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord with certain Commands, which he fulfilled: He said: "I will make you an Imam to the Nations." He pleaded: "And also (Imams) from my offspring!" He answered: "But My Promise is not within the reach of evil-doers."

    Weather this is the correct scripture of the calling in the Koran I have no idea.

    Ella, I applaud you for your honesty and willingness to be a part of this discussion. The Abraham story has been in my life since childhood and I have never questioned its truthfulness. Yours is indeed an inquiring mind. I'm not sure I would care one way or the other about this conversation without a basic belief in the scriptural foundation. I have labored over this paragraph and sincerely hope I have managed to convey my admiration in an inoffensive way.

    Lou

    georgehd
    March 1, 2003 - 08:07 am
    I am still in Cayman and wanted to see if there were any new Abraham posts and there were.

    First, Diane, do - do read the Life of Pi. The book is fascinating and the discussion which you can retrieve on line was equally interesting. This was my first SN discussion group and I was very impressed.

    As a Jew, I have lived with Abraham all of my life. The story of the sacrifice of Isaac is the torah portion read every year on Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year which corresponds with the new moon in late September. This holiday is one of the two most important for Jews (the other being Yom Kippur which is ten days later) and begins the days of awe. This is a time of introspection and we ask forgiveness from our fellow men for sins committed in the preceding year.

    The story of the sacrifice is repeated and reinterpreted by the rabbi and so remains crucial in the Jewish religion.

    I was attracted to read Abraham for two reasons. First, I am reexaming my own understanding of Judaism (I just finished Stalking Elijah). And in addition I have just started to read a text, Understanding the Old Testament by Bernhard W. Anderson; it was recommended by someone taking a course in the Old Testament. This will prove to be a lengthy journey as the text is 600 pages and in order to really understand it, one needs to read the Torah portions that are recommended. It should come in handy as we discuss this book.

    I am about half way through Abraham but need to go back and review. As previously posted, I will be away until March 10th, when I look forward to rejoining the group. My name is George; georgehd is just a way of differentiating me from other Georges.

    Harold Arnold
    March 1, 2003 - 09:38 am
    Hello everyone, it is time to begin our discussion of "Abraham." The indication are that this will be a popular discussion as about a dozen individuals have indicated their interest and intended participation. Wonderful, you are all welcome and we hope you will all be active with your comments.

    I will begin following the spirit of Georgehd in post #64, with a few paragraphs concerning my previous relationship with Abraham and why this book seemed so interesting to me. My earliest introduction to Abraham came many years ago when I was about 8-years old at a Methodist Sunday School at a Church in the Heights on the near north side of Houston Texas. The story of Abraham's near sacrifice of his son, Isaac was alarming. It definitely got my attention perhaps to the extent of my eying my own father with suspicion.

    Aside from this early exposure on the Old Testament, my subsequent church study of the Old Testament was badly neglected in favor of the new Testament until 1950 when in deference to the Trinity University requirement of 6 Credit hours of religion for graduation I took Old Testament History as a part of this requirement again exposing me (now largely forgotten) not only to the Abraham stories, but to an overview of the entire Old Testament. I completed the final 3- Credit hours with a course described as Comparative Religious Thought that was the study of the nine living religions. This added an overview of differing concepts of current religions including the Judaic/Christian/Islamic relationship through their common Patriarch, Abraham

    Since then I can't say that I have spent much time thinking of the subject until Ella suggested this book for a discussion. After reading reviews and browsing a copy at the local Barnes and Noble it appeared to me so overwhelmingly timely, that I immediately wanted to read it and participate.

    Persian
    March 1, 2003 - 10:21 am
    My multicultural family background (French/Irish Christians, Persian Jews and Muslims), personal and professional interests and background in the cultures and people of the three religions under discussion here attracted me to the ABRAHAM group. I am American born (Calif. native), but have lived in the Middle East, traveled throughout its diverse territories and have a strong appreciation for religious customs of the residents. As the mother of a Christian Army Chaplain and the spouse of an Egyptian Muslim university literature professor, I have a couple of extra family reasons to participate in what I'm confident will be an excellent discussion of our forefather, Abraham.

    kiwi lady
    March 1, 2003 - 11:25 am
    I wanted to join in this discussion because it is so very timely. I am from a Christian background and the only thing I really knew about Abraham was the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son . I was taught that Abraham was a very obedient servant of his God.

    Carolyn

    BaBi
    March 1, 2003 - 11:32 am
    To answer your questions, Ella: I have long loved the study of scriptures, and am familiar with the story of Abraham. I was interested to see what Mr. Feiler could add to what is known concerning him, and what support he would have for his findings.

    I have several versions of the Bible, a Tanakh (the Jewish Bible), and a Qu'ran which I am still reading. The Qu'ran, of course, does does not have the same books as the other two. I found Gen.12:2-3 almost the same in the Bible and the Tanakh. The last line is somewhat different. In the Bible (NIV version) the line reads: "and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you". In the Tanakh the line reads: "and all the families of the earth shall bless themselves by you". While not all peoples/families acknowledge Abraham, still either version would be true for a huge proportion of the world's peoples. One can consider that in bringing the knowledge of the one God to these billions of people, they were blessed 'through' Abraham. It is also true, as Mr Feiler describes in his book, these same people also bless themselves 'by' Abraham, in different ways.

    Since the subject of the near sacrifice of Isaac has come up, I thought I would enter my take on that. My reading of the scriptures is that (1) Abraham totally trusted God; (2) that God had said that it was through Isaac that His promise to Abraham would be kept. When they went up that mountain, and Isaac asked where the sacrificial lamb was, Abraham replied that God would provide the lamb. What I see is that Abraham so trusted God, that he would step out in obedience believing that when he came back down off that mountain, his son would be coming down with him.

    ...Babi

    Ann Alden
    March 1, 2003 - 12:20 pm
    My interest in reading or listening,( as is my case since to get the book at the library meant waiting for 40 others to read it first. I have the CD right here at my side so can listen to it at will.) to this book came from seeing Bruce Feilor and another author on Books TV. They both spoke of their books and simultaneously answered questions from the audience. The other book is a young man's story of traveling the US and seeking a religion for himself. In it, he tells of his impression of each different religion that he visited and considered.

    Abraham and his story interested me because of the connections with the three main faiths of the world. I knew about Isaac and Ishmael and a little of their histories but am fascinated by this combining of the three faiths' Abrahamic histories.

    Whether these are true stories makes no difference as these are the myths(traditions) that many people have lived by for thousands of years.

    As to the pages in the book, I am helpless to figure those out so will tell you that I am on the 2nd CD and just starting into the discussion titled "Isaac" which is the last half hour of the 2nd CD. Can anyone tell me what the first group of pages covers and how far I should listen?

    Hats
    March 1, 2003 - 01:31 pm
    I wanted to know more about Abraham. This is why I chose to read the book and learn from this discussion. As a Christian, I have always been taught that Abraham was a man of great faith. When my faith might be weak due to adversity, I was taught to look to Abraham's faith as an example.

    pedln
    March 1, 2003 - 02:06 pm
    First of all, Ann, thank you so much for the National Geographic site. I have downloaded the map and will try to find the Dec. 2001 issue at my local library.

    I just got my copy yesterday at the Regional Library after Amazon kept moving the ship date of my order back and back. So, have not had a chance to get into it yet. My biblical knowledge is very limited, and most of it from the childhood Hurlbut's Story of the Bible. Ella, my knowledge of Abraham about equals yours, though I never really questioned it. I didn't know he was the father of three religions.

    Why read this? It's there and we are discussing it. I would probably never pick this book to read on my own, but I learn so much from these discussions. And as Lou so aptly put it, "Can a study of Abraham help find a way through the mine fields, literal and figurative, of the Middle East?" It can only help.

    I'm a baptized Lutheran, confirmed Methodist turned Presbyterian for 30 years. For ten years I belonged to an inter-denominational church in San Juan, PR, and an ecumenical approach to religion is what I favor. As a 12-year-old Guatemalan said to my daughter, "Hay un Dios, verdad?" I'm glad we will be having different perspectives from different faiths while discussing this book.

    Justin
    March 1, 2003 - 05:26 pm
    I am neither Muslim, Christian, nor Hebrew. I do not believe in God. I am however, an art historian with an academic interest in religious history. I have read both the New and the Old testaments several times as well as the Quran and the Septuagint.I have just finished Durant's Oriental Heritage and am now participating in the discussion of ancient Greece.

    I come to Abraham as a figure who stands outside the three major religions yet is one adopted by all three as a "father figure". That makes him a worthwhile person to examine. I wonder whether Feiler looks at him in his four roles. He is first an independent person who lived in Mesopotamia in a period in history with it's own characteristics. Then he is a Jewish figure with the characteristics of that religion. Then he is a Christian figure with Christian characteristics and finally he is a Muslim with the characteristics of Islam.

    I come to join you in looking at all four sides of this fellow and in the end perhaps, see more clearly, the one link that ties the major religions.

    Ella Gibbons
    March 1, 2003 - 06:21 pm
    THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR YOUR POSTS, IT'S A GREAT PLEASURE TO READ THEM TONIGHT.

    Lou asked very good questions and perhaps at the end of the book we might be able to answer a few of them, particularly this one: "Can a study of Abraham help find a way through the mine fields, literal and figurative, of the Middle East?" It is what Feiler is attempting to do, I believe, find a common thread; we represent here a small, very small fraction of religions (isn't it great that we have such a good representation); and I hope we can come to some conclusions. George, you will be an excellent resource person for our discussion, as will Mahlia, who is well versed in Islamic culture – as will all of you!

    Does the spelling of the "Koran" in this manner disturb anyone? I know it is often spelled as Qur'an; and I'm not sure which is correct but for purposes of this discussion let us spell it as Feiler did in the book. George, I notice that you did not capitalize the "torah," although Feiler does; however, I think I will discard the idea that I must be at all times correct in my statements. If I misspeak, perhaps one of you will correct me?

    I am not sensitive in the least and am somewhat awed by being a co-leader in this journey through these religious beliefs as stated in Feiler's book, but as Harold stated, it is such an "overwhelmingly timely" book we could hardly overlook its significance to the world in which we live.

    Harold, as you can all surmise, has a wry sense of humor necessary in such a serious discussion - "The story of Abraham's near sacrifice of his son, Isaac was alarming. It definitely got my attention perhaps to the extent of my eying my own father with suspicion." Hahaha Thanks, Harold, for that comment.

    Hello Carolyn and Babi, good to have you both here with your interest and knowledge and, Ann, these pages take us through the Chapter named "Call." Does that help with the C.D? HATS – my faith has weakened over the years and perhaps this book will renew it, I don't know. I have always questioned far too much what I have been taught; questions that put doubts in my mind – an inquiring mind.

    I, too, came to read this book out of an interest in Abraham, but also out of a curiosity about Islamic religion of which I know very little and did not understand that it, too, rose from Abraham, a father figure of all three religions. We will get to that subject very shortly.

    JUSTIN – A non-believer, welcome to the group, good to have all of you!

    Feiler describes his book as a "journey through place and time – three religions, four millennia, one never-ending war." And he sets himself quite a task - that of understanding Abraham's heirs. Billions of heirs – Muslims, Jews, and Christians.

    It reminds me of a statement Mark Twain (I believe said) – "Man is the only animal who's got the true religion, several of them." Yes, several, and we won't even speak of Hinduism and Budhism here.

    I propose that we do keep a list of the points that all three religions can agree on, as stated by our author. First, all religions agree that Abraham is the first person to to understand that there is only one God. He is the first known monotheist (a person who believes in God). And yet we have to take it all on faith, he left no record, no letters, no buildings, as Feiler points out. We must take all belief in any religion on faith alone.

    You could spend hours at this site, click on each small picture to get a larger view: Holy Land pictures

    Rock of Ages; the song remembered by Feiler: Rock of Ages

    What does this quote mean to you – "The legends say that wisdom and pain are the twin pillars of life. God pours these qualities into two symmetrical cones, then adjoins them at their tips, so that the abyss of pain meets the body of knowledge?"

    later, ella

    Ella Gibbons
    March 1, 2003 - 06:26 pm
    Promises to keep: I will not post such long messages in the future; that can be a bit much and I have a tendency to do that - boring, I know. But I did want to express my appreciation to all of you for your posts. Keep them coming, love to read them.

    GingerWright
    March 1, 2003 - 09:05 pm
    Ella

    Not boring at all for me as I took every word in and am thinking about it all.

    Justin
    March 1, 2003 - 11:30 pm
    The message of this book is clearly in evidence in the opening pages. Feiler tells us about the contemporary conflict in Jerusalem. The fear that violence will erupt at any moment at the Temple Mount or the Dome of the Rock is very real. "Every accessory is a provocation: a talit ,a kaffiyeh, a kippah, a cross. Men with machine guns hover..."

    The Iman ends his sermon with " May God bless the Prophet Mohammad and his people just as he blessed Abraham and his people". "Then the city holds it's breath". The Christians and the Jews offer similar phrases. It is clearly, Abraham who links the three religious worshipers who are so much consumed by hatred and violence. Someone, in the early postings today has raised these thoughts and I say them again for emphasis. Can Abraham be the link that binds the peoples of this troubled land?

    Lou2
    March 2, 2003 - 06:22 am
    "What does this quote mean to you?

    The legends say that wisdom and pain are the twin pillars of life. God pours these qualities into two symmetrical cones, then adjoins them at their tips, so that the abyss of pain meets the body of knowledge."

    First the word legend: I had never used the term legend in regards to religion. When I met the term on page 4, "the legends of monotheism", I had to set back and really think about it. Since my background is very fundamentalist I don't believe there are many legends connected with my beliefs. Several of the "stories" used here are new to me, as is the above quotation.

    What does it mean? " No pain, no gain" springs to mind, having spent years in a high school. We learn through pain? It's painful to gain knowledge? Through our life of pain, we gain knowledge in our older years? Then on page 13 Feiler talks about "the diaspora of monotheism" thinking of "holidays of as being radiant with joy" while really "they are resplendent with pain". Is that the heart of this quotation? Could I ignore the frightening statement he made next: "Is that the model of holiness, the legacy of Abraham: to be prepared to kill for God?" Why would the legacy not be the reverse? Be prepared to die for God? Or is the real meaning through this life of pain we gain the knowledge of Heaven?

    Ella, I loved your summary post.

    Lou

    Hats
    March 2, 2003 - 06:44 am
    I agree with Lou2 or Jonny. "No pain. No gain." I think the quote from the book given by Ella is a positive way of looking at life's painful moments. Whether we live with emotional distress or physical pain, there is, in so many words, a silver lining. There is wisdom that is gained from our uncomfortable personal experiences. Of course, this does not mean that our human experiences don't fill us with dread and anger.

    Marjorie
    March 2, 2003 - 09:25 am
    I think of the word "legends" as the oral history that is passed down from generation to generation. (I am not looking the word up in the dictionary or thinking about a dictionary definition.) There was a time long, long ago when history was only known by the stories that were told from generation to generation.

    My background is Jewish Reform with more scolarly interpretation than ritual. In Judiasm, as I understand it, the oral interpretation/tradition was at least as important as the Torah. I do not speak for anyone but myself. I will be lurking. I have not read the book and don't plan to get it. My comments are limited to the posts of others here.

    kiwi lady
    March 2, 2003 - 09:26 am
    I do not take the account of Abraham and his willingness to obey God in offering up his son as "killing for God". There is a big difference in my opinion. I take the whole account as "being willing to sacrifice for God" God was testing Abraham - would he be prepared to give up the most precious possession he had - his son. Abraham had been long without children Therefore if God had insisted Abraham actually kill his son it would have been a case of tremendous sacrifice. In the Crusades for instance the Crusaders entered upon what they said was a holy war but there was no personal sacrifice in the killings that occurred.

    I could go on at some length but suffice to say I have read the first part of this book and as a Christian it caused me to think very deeply. Far from disturbing my beliefs it has reinforced them.

    Carolyn

    Harold Arnold
    March 2, 2003 - 10:39 am
    Regarding the existence of Abraham as a historical character I think the message given us by Feiler in his opening chapters can be summarized as follows:

    1. There are no direct historical records substantiating the fact that Abraham ever lived.


    2. What we know indicating his existence and the details of his life is based on oral stories coming to us through the mist of some 38 centuries (from about 1800 BCE).


    3. There are substantial differences in the details accepted by each of the three Abrahamic faiths resulting from different, often diverse, interpretations by each of these faiths.


    4. Modern Archaeological and historical research studying ancient Fertile Crescent Cultures in the 2nd millennium CBE have discovered evidence of migration patterns and other parallel contemporary historical events that are consistent with the stories giving substance (but short of actual proof) to the existence of Abraham as an individual or a composite and basic truth of the stories.


    Therefore for each individual the missing firm evidence of Abraham and the details of his life must be supplied by his/her faith. I think this is the general condition surrounding the acceptance or rejection of religion by each of us today. Many scientific and logic arguments can be made for the existence of god. But in the end such arguments fall short of final proof, a deficiency that can only be supplied through the faith of the individual believer. In the end neither the existence of Abraham or God its self cannot be proved or disproved by science. In the end it is a matter of individual faith.

    Ann Alden
    March 2, 2003 - 11:24 am
    Here is an interesting site pertaining to the Dome of the Rock and quite an interesting history of this sacred place. Beautiful pictures! Be sure to scroll down the page. Dome of the Rock

    pedln, I find that if I have a map laying here on desk, I can follow Abraham's journey easier. Glad you were able to print it.

    Harold Arnold
    March 2, 2003 - 12:01 pm
    Justin, I like this wording of this basic question raise in the reading of this book, "Can Abraham be the link that binds the peoples of this troubled land?" Lou and Ella posted versions, using slightly different phrasings, yesterday. As Ella has suggested, we should try to formulate our individual answers to this question as we proceed through the discussion and post our answers as we conclude at the end of the month.

    Lou my first thought on your question concerning the interpretation of the quotation you gave in post 77, was me staring at a blank wall. If it had stopped with the first sentence I don't think it would have been as much of a problem to confirm your interpretation, "no pain, no gain." But the addition of the second sentence seems to complicate it for me. I keep trying to envision the physical construction it described, the symmetrical Cones with their tips connected. I keep seeing two parallel cones sort of a hydrological system connected at the top, but that configuration would not be symmetrical. I suppose my thinking is more in terms of physical concepts rather the abstract ones. I'll have to be satisfied with the "no pain no gain" message implied by the first sentence.

    Was the quotation from the book, I must have passed over it?

    And Ann , thank you for the link to the "Dome of the Rock Site. The picture of the inter pillars that encircle the rock with its transcendental blue tones contrasting with the background red is quite spectacular. I plan to read the entire text as time permits.

    Lou2
    March 2, 2003 - 12:41 pm
    Harold, the quote is on page 6... I was answering Ella's question from her post... #73, if I remember correctly. I also tried to get the mental image of these symmetrical cones... Feiler can do a real job on your mind, IMHO! The words he uses are simple... but the concepts are huge!

    I can't argue with your logic, Harold, on the conclusions Feiler came to about Abraham. That has been the biggest surprise for me... there being absolutely no archeological finding proving A lived.

    Lou

    GingerWright
    March 2, 2003 - 12:41 pm
    Ann

    Thank You for the clickable to The Dome Of The Rock as it does sum up how the three religions are seving the same God but are using different names at different times and places.

    The book Abraham was a good book to read and very informative but the minds of Each and Everyone of you add so much more understanding to it like adding fuel to a fire. I am so enjoying your posts.I do have the map printed out, Thanks for it.

    Ella Gibbons
    March 2, 2003 - 01:42 pm
    As Justin pointed out it would be difficult to be living in Jerusalem today, holding your breath every time you leave your home for fear the bus you are on, the street where you walk could be a target of a suicide bomber or a shooting. Could it happen in America?

    Lou - the familiar phrase "no pain, no gain" reminds me too clearly of a weight-loss program – haha. Your question – is the legacy of Abraham to be prepared to kill – is one we will, we must consider and I was going to ask that same question.

    What do the rest of you think about that question? Abraham was prepared to kill, is this a model for us?

    Thank you, HATS, for your statement that – "There is wisdom that is gained from our uncomfortable personal experiences." I would answer that by stating not always! I've known many people who experiencing pain have turned to drugs, alcohol or in some way ended their lives too soon. You believe we get wisdom from pain?

    Do all of you believe that?

    Welcome, Marjorie – good explanation of legends – LOU, can you live with that explanation?

    Wonderful post, Carolyn, about Abraham and God. Does God test all of us in our lifetime? How does he - and does this test mean heaven and hell for those tested? How does one know if you have passed?

    Oh, goodness, maybe you shouldn't answer any of those questions or we'll all be in a religious discussion which is way off the subject. But maybe not, because Harold gave us a good explanation (and it could be a test, couldn't it?) of belief and faith.

    Hello, Ginger, glad to have you here! And

    thanks, Ann, for the DOME OF THE ROCK – isn't it lovely? Let me quote from the book something Feiler says of the Dome of the Rock; incidentally have any of you been to Israel or any country in the Middle East? We would love to hear from someone that has been there.

    "Before there was time, there was water, and a darkness covered the deep. A piece of land emerged out of the water. That land is the Rock and the rock is here (Jerusalem). Adam was buried here. Solomon built here. Jesus prayed here. Muhammed ascended here. Abraham came here to sacrifice his son."


    Any problem in believing that?

    In this holy place every day is a holy war. Is there such a thing as a "holy" war? Which religion believes that? One or all of them?

    Lou2
    March 2, 2003 - 02:35 pm
    Thanks, Marjorie, for your explanation on legends. Oral history has certainly played a huge part in passing on the legacy of cultural history, I've just never thought of religious history as legend.

    Ella, I respect your statement about a religious discussion. I don't want a religious debate here either.

    Page 11... Muhammad may be more important for the Muslims, Jesus for Christians, and Moses for Jews; yet all three traditions go out of their way to link themselves to their common patriarch.

    Any ideas on why???

    "Holy War"... Crusades, Inquisition, Jihad.... the battle of Tours in 1732 stopped the spread of Islam across Europe (This from my resident history teacher!) Our world's history is full of them, isn't it? Is that what's happening now? In Isreal? In the pattern of terrorism? Is there a difference in defense and offense? Protecting yourself vs aggression against others? Which is more holy? Or is either holy?

    Lou

    kiwi lady
    March 2, 2003 - 03:03 pm
    I do not think there is any war one could call holy!

    The only war I think is just is when you are facing an invading army and you are fighting for your life. Force can never change very strong beliefs. Take the Christian Martyrs for instance. However I have this horrible feeling that George Bush may see himself as embarking upon a holy war in the Middle East.

    The Archbishop of Canterbury said he has to speak out and he has never spoken out before about any war Britain has entered into. His opinion is that at present a preemptive attack on Iraq would not be a just war.

    Carolyn

    kiwi lady
    March 2, 2003 - 03:06 pm
    Why are we linked to Abraham. I think it was very well explained in the book. Abraham embraced the One all powerful God. It was the beginning of the understanding that one powerful force was in charge of the Universe. All three religions subscribe to this belief and Abraham was the root of this understanding. It is quite a simple answer really.

    Carolyn

    kiwi lady
    March 2, 2003 - 03:11 pm
    I do not think one can exclude religion from this discussion but perhaps as the author has done we can all approach it from the point of our own belief and not get into arguments over who is right or wrong. We are discussing a book which has taken this very approach - taking three directions.

    Carolyn

    LouiseJEvans
    March 2, 2003 - 04:04 pm
    Abraham is mentioned quite frequently in other books I read and talks I hear. Someone challenged me to read Bruce Feiler's book. I had it with me when I took my car in for service. Abraham was a man quite well off living in Ur. He left this comfortable place to live in tents. How many of us could do that in our 70's let alone 80? It was his obedience and his great faith that made him special. It required much faith for him and his son to go to prepare for sacrifice. Apparenlty didn't even question how God was going to keep his promises to him. I can't really separate him into three religions. I only know the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and the Greek Scriptures (New Testament). They belong together. I don't know the Koran so I can't speak for that. But Abraham did have 2 sons.

    kiwi lady
    March 2, 2003 - 04:18 pm
    As I know nothing about the Jewish faith or Islam I will approach each question if appropriate from my faith. I have to say when the book opened and described Jerusalem I would love to see it for myself!

    Carolyn

    GingerWright
    March 2, 2003 - 04:56 pm
    Please Read This

    99 NAMES OF God

    Lou2
    March 2, 2003 - 05:30 pm
    Ginger, Thank you, that was an interesting article. Would I be wrong in assuming you are Muslim?

    Lou

    Harold Arnold
    March 2, 2003 - 05:58 pm
    I just spent the past 3 hours watching the Spurs beat Houston. At times it seemd doubtful that I would continue to receive the pictures coming down from the Direct Tv satellite through the heaviest clouds I have ever seen. It was almost dark at 4:30 PM, As dence as the clouds appeared there was not much electrical activity and no more rain fall than a heavy mist. The picture filckred and was even lost for a few seconds but continued through the game.

    Kiwi Lady, you mentioned the unusually long longevity enjoyed by Abraham and I think several other Book of Genesis characters. Such longevities in the range of 3 life expectancies seem to me unlikely to have been experienced. Feller tells us that the Abrahamic stories circulated for centuries as oral traditions and it was many centuries later before even the Hebrew interpreters began to put them in writing. Do you suppose this might have been one of the inserts of editors to emphasize the close relationship of Abraham to God?

    Lou, Charlemagne's grandfather Charles Martel led the Frankish Army that defeated the Moslems in the battle of Tours in 732. This victory was successful in stopped the Islamic invasion of France from Spain. However, the Moslems remained in control of much of Spain for another 700 year, and It was 1492, just months before Columbus began his voyage of discovery, before Christian Spain was finally successful in pushing the Moslems from their last Spanish providence, Granada.. The Christian Spanish, flush from this perceived victory continued by expelling their Jewish citizens, a project that was underway as the Columbus voyage began. Many of the Spanish Jews found refuge in Moslem Noorth Africa. The loss of the Moors and Jews was a significant cultural loss for Spain as they took with them the great achievements in mathematics, and science, particularly medical science that had flourished in Moslem Spain.

    Persian
    March 2, 2003 - 06:40 pm
    GINGER - Many thanks. That was an excellent link, providing a clear and easily understood explanation about the Arabic word for God and (hopefully) eliminating any confusion about Muslims believing in "another" God.

    It might be interetsing to note as we think of how extensively "the descendants of Abraham" reached out to and settled in communities around the world, that there is extensive historical data verifying the presence of large communities of Jews and Muslims in China (especially after the Ming dynasty rulers opened up the country to traders from outside "The Middle Kingdom.") Although many of the traders intermarried with Han Chinese (and took Chinese names), they maintained their religious beliefs. In China's Western provinces, there are large communities of Muslim Turkmen; in the South Eastern regions, there have historically been Muslim/Jewish communities intermingled among one another, worshipping in the same buildings (at one time mosques; at other times temples). The demise of these communities, just like in Spain, resulted in the tremendous loss of intellectual life, international trading, art and educational resources when the two minority communities were overwhelmed by the Han. Footnote: Several of my Jewish Chinese students at Chongqing University were named Abraham (along with their Chinese family names.)

    Ella Gibbons
    March 2, 2003 - 07:29 pm
    WOW! What a history lesson we have had from Lou's resident historian, and Harold and Mahlia! That was great to learn all that, thank you so much.

    In keeping with the positive approach we are taking in this discussion - one that is hoping to find similarities in all three religions - I put four statements in the heading and as we go through the rest of the book we may find more.

    As the Middle East explodes in acts of terrorism (that has also come to our shores) we need to define similarities rather than disparities in these three religions.

    later, ella

    GingerWright
    March 2, 2003 - 07:41 pm
    Lou2

    I I am a Christian that Loves God with All my Heart, mind and soul and do believe that God sent me to that articule for a reason because he Knows that we want to understand what is going on at this time and has a purpose for it and wants us to understand each other and I do believe that the Book Abraham's Journey Thru Three Faiths is defintly a good start.

    Persian

    I have seen you in person at the Book Gathering in DC and I have seen your posts in the Graditude discusions long before that as I go there also and have for a few years so feel that I know you better than I know some of my blood relation.

    OH how I love Senior Net with it's conection of People from ALL OVER THE WORLD getting to know each other.

    Let there be Peace on earth and let it begin with God thru me/us and a place called Senior Net.

    With much love I remain part of All of the family of God and S/N

    Ginger

    GingerWright
    March 2, 2003 - 08:09 pm
    Louise J. Evans

    It is So Good to see you here and I thank You for coming in to this discussion as you are one of the first persons I met on S/N and have been So Much Help to me and I apprieciate it. I will be waiting for your input on this discusion.

    With Much Apprieciation I remain you S/N sister,

    Ginger

    Harold Arnold
    March 2, 2003 - 09:14 pm
    Persian you made a good point in your suggestion that we note how extensively the descendants of Abraham reached out to settle in communities around the world. I had not heard of the Jews and Muslims that settled in China though I know of countless other places and how extensive immigration of the whole human race has been throughout history.

    And Ginger thank you for your message #98 with its spirit of love and ecumenical brother between all of Abraham's descendants.

    Justin
    March 2, 2003 - 11:57 pm
    Feiler in the early pages of the book says, that "Abraham is the linchpin in the Israeli-Arab conflict". I wonder if that is really the case.Feiler seems to be saying that the conflict is about religious issues-about Abraham. I know the Palestinians say the war is jihad which means Holy War. But the conflict is not one of religious issues, it is conflict over land, and land ownership, and the rights of citizenship and equality and the right to earn a living. The Arabs have been replaced albeit by a war, but they want their land restored. They don't care one fig about Abraham being the father patriach of both Islam and Judaism. They are happy he is their father patriach.

    Further, Feiler says, A is the center-piece of the battle between the west and Islamic extremists. That doesn't seem to make much sense either. At the center of the conflict between the west and Islamic extremists is Israel and the west's evident support for that nation. Sure, they don't like the way western women dress but we are not too happy with the way they dress their women. Western women dress to please themselves. These are not religious issues. They are cultural issues.

    Hats
    March 3, 2003 - 03:33 am
    Ella,

    How true!! Pain does not always bring wisdom. Some people, after a crisis or trauma, do choose a more foolish way of life. I hear about them everyday. Men who kill their families because of their despair during a devoirce, women who hurt their children because, they think, they have no where to turn. I guess how we handle pain is an individualized event. Each person handles it differently and not always in a good way.

    Now, I should continue reading my chapters and rereading the posts.

    Hats
    March 3, 2003 - 03:42 am
    I think one of the similarities between Jews, Muslims and Christians is that each group of people share a deep love for Jerusalem and see it as an especially holy site.

    robert b. iadeluca
    March 3, 2003 - 05:09 am
    Many of us hold on to icons, e.g. a particular doll on a shelf or a specific old sweater. Cities can be icons. To Americans, Washington, DC is an icon representing democracy. If terrorists were to destroy the Washington Monument, for example, the loss of life might be relatively small but the anger rising up in the American people would be tremendous even more, perhaps, than the destruction of a small city, as terrible as that might be.

    I agree with Justin that it is a conflict over land -- but a particular piece of land which represents a religious or cultural thought in their mind.

    Why is it that a significant number of Jewish Americans leave America to settle in Israel and put their lives in danger? They can look over the hill and say "that's where the Israelites did such and such millennia ago."

    Robby

    Lou2
    March 3, 2003 - 06:58 am
    Persia said: Several of my Jewish Chinese students at Chongqing University were named Abraham (along with their Chinese family names.)

    Persia, do you teach in the University now? What do you teach? May I ask where you are from? Thank you so much for you insights. Always so interesting to hear from the folks that have been there and experienced the life.

    Justin, I agree that land is at issue in this area and that cultural issues are at stake, but isn't religion a part of culture?

    Harold, the explanation I have been given for the very great ages the folks lived in the Old Testament times was that it was necessary because the world was so lightly populated. Does this hold up to modern day technology? I can't say.

    Ginger, thank you for your explanation about the article. It was a really good one. Interesting that you quoted from the song Let There Be Peace on Earth, that song sang along through my mind the whole way through Abraham.

    Oh, and my resident historian said 732 for the battle of Tours, his typist, me, got it wrong!

    Lou

    Harold Arnold
    March 3, 2003 - 09:04 am
    Justin, I agree that the patriarch Abraham as an individual is in no way a linchpin in the current Arab-Israeli conflict. As you say the issue is land and as Robby and Hats have pointed our, over particular pieces of land. I think that when Feiler wrote, Abraham is the linchpin in the Israeli-Arab conflict," he is using the patriarch's name, "Abraham as a proxy word meaning the three Abrahamic faiths that he spawned, and in particular two of them, Judaism and Islam. Whether this is good or bad writing style I will not judge, but I note it is quite common.

    Is it not interesting that the Arab press has no compulsion against the use of the word "Jihad, but in the West the use of the Word "Crusade is a taboo. Immediately after 9/11 the military first announced a code name for the Afghanistan operation that included the word, "crusade." It was quickly changed to the present code, which is not currently retrievable from my memory.

    Ann Alden
    March 3, 2003 - 10:30 am
    Just yesterday, I read an article in the Dec 2002 issue of NG titled "The World of Islam" and along with the article was this wonderful world map with the Muslim populations of each country shown. I was amazed to see the Chinese area as I had no idea or just never thought of the Chinese being Muslim or Jewish or Chrisian. This article is available at National Geographic's site here on the net but I will leave it up to all of you to get there on your own. :<)

    Does the phrase "holy war" mean that the person perpetrating a 'holy war', thinks that that war is approved by God? The human race is so peculiar!

    Rah, rah, for Ginger!

    I feel like I am in a history class and must go back to studying!

    For me, the term "myth" pertains to the religious and cultural beliefs and practices of a particular group.

    Paige
    March 3, 2003 - 10:32 am
    Harold, is the term you are thinking of "Operation Enduring Freedom?" I'm not sure of that but it jumped into my head.

    Ella Gibbons
    March 3, 2003 - 11:30 am
    GINGER, I echo what Harold has just said and we love you, too! Thanks so much for your posts and for that clickable to the explanation of the Muslim's name for God – ALLAH. I have met both you and Mahlia – isn't it great to meet in person! I see both your faces in my mind right now.

    JUSTIN – Harold answered your question very well, I would add that Feiler is attempting to connect Abraham as a central theme for all three religions; I don't know if he is correct or not, and he is just writing a book about their religions – not about the conflict in the Middle East. I am sure there are numerous books on this subject, but in my opinion, this is not one of them.

    I JUST LOVE THE WAY ALL OF YOU ARE TALKING TOGETHER, COMMENTING ON EACH OTHER'S POSTS – NOW IF SOMEONE COULD JUST PASS THE COOKIES AND REFILL THE CUPS OF COFFEE WOULDN'T WE HAVE A GRAND TIME!

    But to return to the book –

    After reading about Abraham and what the archeologists have discovered what do you believe about the birth of Abraham, where he lived, where he journeyed? Was he born in Ur, moved to Canaan, traveled to Egypt, fathered two sons, changed his name, cut off part of his penis, exiled his first son, attempted to kill his second, fought a world war, bought some land, buried his wife, fathered another family and died at 174 years of age? (all this in one paragraph on page 19)

    The book goes into much more detail about all of this in later chapters and how from this beginning all three religions were born. We will be discussing this at some length in later chapters.

    After reading the Chapter entitled "Birth" and without going into great detail, can we all agree that Abraham was born on the upper part of the Fertile Crescent?

    Click here for what I believe is a good description of the Fertile Crescent, known today as Iraq (strange isn't it?) The Fertile Crescent

    In our newspaper recently a long article appeared titled "War would endanger many of Iraq's archaeological sites" stating that the country has thousand of sites and only a fraction have been explored; some of which have revealed the world's earliest known villages and cities and the first examples of writing.

    "Ur, which flourished in the third millennium B.C. and is identified in the Bible as the birthplace of Abraham. In the 1920's and '30's a British-American team excavated a royal cemetery in which members of a powerful social elite were buried with their servants and exquisitely wrought possessions. Ur's most spectacular feature, though, is its immense ramped ziggurat, or tower, the best-preserved in Iraq."


    The article lists the sites most at risk of war. They are Babylon, Nineveh, Ctesiphon, Baghdad.

    In any war, historical sites are destroyed and these, if we go to war, may be damaged or destroyed forever. Some of those names are so familiar to me from my early years of Bible study.

    more later, eg

    GingerWright
    March 3, 2003 - 11:39 am
    Ella

    The the Fertile Crescent was very interesting.

    Ella Gibbons
    March 3, 2003 - 11:40 am
    I do want to take a few minutes to acknowledge some of the new people who have just come into our discussion and urge them to please stay with us. Your comments are well received and your opinions urgently sought! We need everyone's comments here whether you have the book or not. It's a complicated subject. LOUISE, ROBBY AND PAIGE – thanks for your posts!

    BaBi
    March 3, 2003 - 11:57 am
    It occurs to me that much of our knowledge of what one might call "pre-history", meaning pre- written history, is based on oral traditions. In many cultures the passing on of the oral tradition was an honored role, and those entrusted with it were expected to preserve the stories accurately and pass them on intact. While some of oral traditions passed down to us could be at least partially confirmed by archaeological research, not all of it could. Yet we do accept traditions other than that of Abraham as being at least based in fact, don't we? Different cultures have variations on the stories, but the very fact that their different versions contain similar, ..or the same.., information does tend to support their veracity.

    I would also note that while today's conflict between Arab and Jew centers on the land (a land of great religious significance to both), and citizenship and rights, as Justin said, the conflict goes back long before today's issues arose. It goes back, I think, to Abraham's decision, urged by Sarah, to send Ishmael away and make Isaac his sole heir. The rage, resentment and bitterness engendered there was passed down to succeeding generations. So in that sense, Abraham's decision and action was the "linchpin" of a centuries long conflict. ...Babi

    Ella Gibbons
    March 3, 2003 - 12:24 pm
    BABI - you are so right and ahead of us in the book. We shall go into that very subject of Ishmael and Isaac in our discussion later - Feiler has much to say on both sons.

    One more post today – I wanted to thank HATS for this statement – "I think one of the similarities between Jews, Muslims and Christians is that each group of people share a deep love for Jerusalem and see it as an especially holy site." I agree and if there no objection from any of you I will put that in the heading. THANKS, HATS!

    Ann (a good friend and one I see often as we both live in the same city) brought a question of a "holy" war and who is entitled to use that term. Thoughout history, each side to a war has pronounced that God is with them - he's a very popular fellow – this God!

    GingerWright
    March 3, 2003 - 12:32 pm
    This is where I got the 99 names of God From a three year old, Can you believe it?

    It was in the News so don't blame me if it is not so and I hope you Ella, Harold and all don't mind this long post that is not about the Book?

    Smart 3 yr old Arab community rallies to aid gifted 3-year-old By DAVID GOODMAN Associated Press Writer Bachar DEARBORN, Mich. -- Most adults would have trouble keeping up with 3-year-old Bachar Sbeiti. He speaks Arabic, English and French. He can identify the flags and capitals of countries from Djibouti to Sweden. He can recite Islam's 99 names for God. "Bachar is just an amazing kid," said Maysoon Khatib, a fund-raiser for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. So amazed was Windsor, Ontario, family doctor Henry Clarke that he warned Hala Sbeiti that her son needed a special school to let his genius develop. "His exact words were: 'Use it or lose it,' " said Hala Sbeiti, a 32-year-old native of Lebanon who now lives in Windsor. So amazed were leaders of the 300,000-member Arab community across the Detroit River in southeastern Michigan that they decided to underwrite his education at the exclusive Roeper School. "Bachar's talent is a gift from God," Lebanon Consul General Mohamad Skayni told 60 people at a fund-raising reception for the boy on Thursday night. "But this gift won't become something concrete ... unless we look after it, unless we nurture it." "We want Bachar to grow among us, to get acquainted with our beliefs, our value system ... and then he will be free to be who he wants to be," Skayni said. So far, the scholarship drive has raised enough money to pay one year's tuition at Roeper, a private pre-K to 12th-grade school of 630 in the Detroit suburb of Bloomfield Hills. The immediate goal is to raise enough for three years, or about $45,000. "We truly have an exceptional kid," said Ghanim Al-Jumaily of Life for Relief and Development, one of the charities raising money for Bachar. "We truly want to pay attention to him." An exceptional kid. But still a kid. As the speeches continued, Bachar, dressed up in a vest and bow tie, wandered among the tables, oblivious to the fuss he was generating. "Mama, Mama," he called out after briefly losing sight of Hala Sbeiti. Being mother to a prodigy is hard work, the divorced mother said. "He talks 24 hours a day. He's always asking questions," Hala Sbeiti said. At bedtime one night, Bachar asked her for the capital of Sweden. She said she did not know and would find out in the morning. Bachar did not want to wait that long. "I called my brother, and he told me" that it was Stockholm, his mother said. "I told Bachar, and he was satisfied." Once Bachar asked his mother what happened to the sun at night. She said it rested while the moon came out. One rainy day, he confronted her: "Mommy, you lied. It's raining and there is no sun and no moon." Hala Sbeiti speaks mostly Arabic to her son, knowing that he gets lots of exposure to English from others. She also speaks to him in French, and he is mastering all three. Whatever the language, Bachar misses little that is said around him. Playing around the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee's Michigan office, he kept up a steady conversation with the office workers. "He sure talks a lot," Khatib said in English to a co-worker. "I don't talk a lot. I know a lot," Bachar responded -- in Arabic. Sometimes, Bachar tires of the attention. He balked at a television reporter's request that he show off his geographic prowess. "They're looking at me like a monkey," Khatib quoted him as saying. Roeper, meanwhile, is eagerly awaiting Bachar's arrival, admissions director Lori Zinser said. On Feb. 20, he and his mother visited the school. "We were instantly able to see that he is extremely bright, gifted," said Zinser, who admitted him on the spot. He is expected to start next week. His mother said she is excited about the opportunity ahead for her son, as well as the chance to go back to work while he is in school. She said she was overwhelmed by the response to Bachar's special needs. "I am really so proud of the generosity of my community," she said. "They really secured Bachar's future."

    LouiseJEvans
    March 3, 2003 - 01:49 pm
    It did bother me a bit to see Abraham's circumcision described as cutting off part of his penis. True that is what he did, but only the foreskin. It really must have hurt.

    Many of this early patriarchs lived very long lives although the reproductive period of women doesn't seem to have been much different from ours. Sarah was considered too old to have a child but pretty enough to attract other men. These are just some things I think about when I am considering these and some of the other people in the Bible. It must have taken so much courage to leave the comforts of home and a prosperous city. (I have recently moved and that's no fun at all!)

    LouiseJEvans
    March 3, 2003 - 02:01 pm
    Ginger, I definitely believe you when you say you got your material from one so young. Lately I am meeting children and I am amazed. I don't remember being as smart as they seem.

    ALF
    March 3, 2003 - 03:19 pm
    Good Lord! Has Christmas gone by already? I requested this book for Christmas and did not get it, forgot about it, remembered it once again when Ella first started to think about discussing it here and it flew over the cuckoos nest shortly after that. NOW- late as usual, I have just ordered it. I met Bruce Feiler at the Sarasota book Festival and was quite impressed with this young man's knowledge. I'm following the discussion and will jump in.

    Harold Arnold
    March 3, 2003 - 03:56 pm
    I want to say a few additional words emphasizing the thought contained in Ella's and BaBi's message concerning Feiler central theme namely Abraham as the common roots of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. True each of these religions recognizes Abraham as their Patriarch. In this sense I suppose they do have common roots. However, as Feiler points out each of the three groups interpret their Patriarch quite differently, making their view of Abraham and their descent from him different.

    Also the fact that the stories of Abraham circulated for thousands of years as oral traditions and that each of the religions made their own interpretation to suit their own particular purpose contributed to diversity. Any stories circulating by word of mouth will be subject to individual wordings including even significant changes to suit the particular storytellers whim or purpose. This is sure to happen even among conscientious tellers.

    Even for the Jews, near a thousand years passed from the time of Abraham and the time Jewish scholars began developing their interpretation. For the Christians and Moslems add another 10 and 17 centuries respectively. And in each case their interpreters had their own purpose to emphasize. Yes, while most Jews, Christians, and Moslems will have no trouble noting Abraham as their shared Patriarch, how they view the significance and meaning of the Patriarch is a different matter. And there are no more bitter quarrels between individuals today than those between members of the same family!

    Harold Arnold
    March 3, 2003 - 04:03 pm
    Paige, I think you are right, "Operation Enduring Freedom" sounds familiar. Does anyone remember the original code name that included the word "Crusade." I only remember it was first announced as a phrase with the word "crusade" in it. In real short order the history majors in the Pentagon pointed out it was like waving a red flag in front of a bull and it was promptly changed.

    Ginger, I for one don't care how long the post. You write them, I'll read them. That was and Interesting story about the little Arab-American boy genius. Let us hope he realizes his great potential.

    And Alf, I seem to remember a post by you late last year about your meeting Bruce Feiler at the Sarasota Book Festival. Is that right?

    GingerWright
    March 3, 2003 - 04:21 pm
    Louise

    I lost my post to you some how but any way The cutting off of the penis took me aback but knew what was meant so said nothing. The 3 yr. old is amazing to me as I was still wetting the bed at that age.

    Harold

    I do think the 3 yr. old will be taken good care of and be what he is meant to be.

    You write I also read every post in here.

    Alf

    I remember also a message of you meeting Bruce Feiler at the Sarasota Book Festival. Go Girl Go, Tell us more.

    Persian
    March 3, 2003 - 04:32 pm
    I'd like to offer a bit of clarification about the word jihad. Although we in the West have come to think of jihad as used in connection with the PLO and Al Qaida - where it is often referred to as "A Holy JIHAD," the word simply means "struggle." The context means to "struggle with one's self or more precisely, within one's self." As many words take on more than the original meaning as they progress through various time periods (especially when they are abused, if you will, by the media or organizations which want to make their own point), jihad has come to be known primarily in terms of "terrorism."

    May I suggest that we try to think of jihad in its original form. N.B. Along these lines, it should also be noted that when a potential suicide bomber (of whatever nationality) agrees to be a warrior (aggressor) for JIHAD and is convinced he will go straight to Paraside (Heaven), Islam (the religion) proves him/her wrong. The aggressor who kills innocents (especially the elderly, infirm, women and children) goes directly to H.

    If anyone watches Al Jazeera or other news programs in Arabic and happens to hear Arabs speaking of JIHAD, please realize they are bragging in contemporary jargon (usually young men) or are speaking in recently acquired jargon ("street language")if spoken by mature women (often the mothers of the suicide bombers). No woman in her right mind (including Arab mothers in the Middle East or Muslim mothers in the Far East)would thank God to lose a child in such a ghastly manner. Enough said about jihad.

    I also support the understanding that Feiler is referring to Abraham not as the individual person, but as the Patricarchal figure and the historical oral and written traditions of his (Abraham's) influence with the Jews, Christians and Muslims.

    In an earlier post, a comment was made by a Christian who mentioned that he/she did not really know anything about Judaism or Islam. Which makes me wonder if, while reading ABRAHAM, we understand the relationship of Christians to Jews? I'm referring, of course, to the ancient biblical period, not the contemporary period in which we live today.

    GingerWright
    March 3, 2003 - 04:47 pm
    persian

    Thank You for the meaning of jihad as I did not know it meant struggle and maybe some others did not either. AH this coming together is a very leaning experiece. I love it.

    Muslim Children as are being lead astray the same as the rest of the World's Children.

    kiwi lady
    March 3, 2003 - 04:51 pm
    Well in my opinion until the appearance of Christ there were no Christians only gentiles Mahlia. Obviously We Christians were either converted Jews like the apostles or converted heathens. I have no idea where I fit in. But wouldn't it be fascinating to know exactly where we fit in in the scheme of those ancient biblical days of the Old Testament. I believe that genetically we all stem from the same root and I believe that research done recently explained how we are, who we are, genetically today but it was all so complicated I cannot remember any of the scientific details.

    Carolyn

    Harold Arnold
    March 3, 2003 - 04:58 pm
    Ginger, that is an interesting American-Moslem enclave in the Detroit area. In a group of 300,000 people they should have a bit of political clout. Is their at least one Islamic representative in the Congress? If not there should be one or two that is rather responsive to their concerns..

    To answerer your question I think the kid has a good chance to come out on the fast track. Granted there is a long path between his present start as a bright kid and graduation from Harvard, but the road is open to him and he does seem to have attracted a level of community support to offset the possible effect of his parent's apparent separation. Yes, I'm optimistic about his chances

    Persian thanks you for your comment on "jihad." We Americans need more actual contact with Islamic Americans in order to better understand them and their culture. Please post similar explanative comments here as our discussion develops. About 55 years ago during a summer school session at the University of Texas I knew a student from Baghdad. I have not seen or heard of him since and often wonder concerning his career after that time.

    GingerWright
    March 3, 2003 - 05:05 pm
    Carolyn

    Well said. I also believe that genetically we all stem from the same root and I believe that research done recently explained how we are, who we are, genetically today.

    Harold

    I also hope the 3 year old has a long life and is a positive person on earth.

    Ella Gibbons
    March 3, 2003 - 06:04 pm
    What great posts - you are all so delightful - such a pleasure to come and read this discussion and so rewarding in knowledge. We will take much more away from this discussion than we started with I think.

    Thank you Persian - as soon as any mother among us reads this statement - " No woman in her right mind (including Arab mothers in the Middle East or Muslim mothers in the Far East)would thank God to lose a child in such a ghastly manner....." - we know it is true. Mothers are the same in the whole world and love is the same in the world! God gave us the gift of love, I believe - to love each other - animals don't have that capacity although they have instinctual habits to protect the young. How we abuse the gift.

    One thing I want to ask from that sentence. Why did you say "Arab mothers in the Middle East or Muslim mothers in the Far East" - you must pardon my ignorance, that is why I am here - to learn. Aren't they all Arabs in the Middle East? We speak of Arabic nations - what countries are we speaking of when we say that? Is there a difference between an Arab and a Muslim?

    I thought Muslim was a religion and Arab was a race - where am I wrong?

    Carolyn, Feiler does a good job, I think, in telling us how the Christians and the Muslims broke away from Judaism and we will get to that in later chapters - we have the rest of this week to finish up through page 54. I don't like to hurry the discussion, this is such good stuff to learn.

    I will try, if I have time tonight, to find a timeline of when these religions emerged.

    Ella Gibbons
    March 3, 2003 - 06:16 pm
    I opened my book to page 21 and I will quote a few sentences which are informative:

    Abraham and his surviving brother take wives; then Terah (their father) assembles the entire clan and decamps for Canaan (Israel). They arrive in the ancient crossroads of Haran, near Syria, where they settle. Far from random, this travel pattern is consistent with the lives of pastoral nomads, who traversed the region with herds, passed time near settled lands, then migrated to other places. (The Bedoin tribes still do, I believe - maybe others, ones in Afghanistant?)

    Ancient documents describe an interactive society, in which wandering tribes were never far from urban areas, where they bought and sold goods. The Bible alludes to this lifestyle, calling Abraham a Hebrew and an Aramean. These and other variants, Aramu and Arabu, were common terms for "seminomad" until they were replaced with the catchall "Arab.">


    Now we understand where the word "arab" was originated.

    When we say "bible" here I think Feiler is referring to the Christian Bible as he usually names the Torah and the Koran.

    I was concerned about the word "bible" in the beginning of this discussion as I wanted to be correct in usage - I looked up in my dictionary and there are two descriptions of the word that refer to a book of authoritative text. WE can, then use that word for any of the religions, but I prefer to use the Torah and the Koran as Feiler does.

    Persian
    March 3, 2003 - 07:36 pm
    ELLA - in answer to your questions about Arabs in the Middle East and the word "Muslim. 1) No, not all Arabs in the Middle East are Muslims. 2) Nor are there only people of Arab lineage in the Middle East. 3) The world Islam is the name of the religion. 4) The name Muslim is the name of an individual who adheres to the Islamic faith. (Muslima is the feminine). The word is often spelled Moslem. 5) Since Islam (the religion) spread world-wide as the result of trading and conquering Islamic armies, there are Muslims all over the world. Those in the far East are obviously not Arabs (unless they have relocated to Asia from Arab homelands). 6) The most orthodox site of Islam, adhering to the Sunni form is Islam, is Saudi Arabia. Since the Haj (pilgramage to Mecca and Medina) just ended, some of the posters may have read about the Muslims returning from Saudi Arabia after "making the Haj." As a sign of their devotion to God and respect for the ordels they undertook on the Pilgramage, the individuals are now entitled to add the word Haj to their name (i.e. Haj Mohamed). 7) Many Muslims are NOT Arabs; think Persians, Turks, Afghans, for example. The Muslims of India and Pakistan are NOT Arabs; they're Central and South Asians. In the USA, many Afro-Americans have converted to Islam, thus becoming American Muslims. And, of course, there are second generation Muslims in the USA, born of Middle Eastern parentage - like many of the families in Michigan (especially the Detroit area). 9) There are also large communities of Arab Christians in the USA - also in Michigan, Ohio, New York and the metropolitan Washington DC area. Many are descended from families born in Lebanon (which had adn still has a huge Christian population) and Syria, as well as Egypt (think Copts) and Ethiopia. 10) And to make things even more confusing, there are Arab Jews, many of whom trace their lineage back to Southern Iraq (around Basra and Babylon). Most of these communities have been drastically reduced or destroyed and their inhabitants relocated to Israel (if they're lucky) or Europe or the USA. Some, however, are in Shanghai, Beijing and Guangdong, where they continue to pursue business interests (esepcially banking and trading).

    I hope this information has helped a bit. I learned tonight that I will be traveling for at least the rest of the week, so will check back with the discussion when I return. Enjoy!

    Mahlia

    GingerWright
    March 3, 2003 - 07:59 pm
    OH how this book and the posters here have enlighted my knowlege and life and I thank you for it.

    GingerWright
    March 3, 2003 - 08:03 pm
    Persian

    Safe travel and may you hear the flutering of the Aunties around you.

    Harold Arnold
    March 3, 2003 - 09:23 pm
    I think another non-Arab Middle East people mentioned frequently in the news today are the Kurds in Northern Iraq and Eastern Turkey. As a people they have long sought National status, which has always been denied though the Kurds of Iraq have been virtually independent in recent years as a result of the Northern No-Fly Zone enforced by the US and UK.

    The Coptic Christians in Egypt and Ethiopia are examples of Christians native in the mid east. One of my last hires at my former employment was a Coptic Christian lady from Ethiopia. Her husband was a doctor/professor at the UTSA Medical school. Since there was no Coptic Church in San Antonio she attended the Greek Orthodox Church while in San Antonio. Apparently the worship of the two faiths are similar.

    Another large Middle East Christian population is in Lebanon. Prior to the recent Civil War the population was about evenly divided between Christians and Moslems and they had a unique power sharing arrangement that worked for many years before the outbreak of the fighting

    ALF
    March 3, 2003 - 09:34 pm
    I do not have the book so I will ask, does Feiler introduce Abraham as if he were reading from Genesis 12, when God separated A from his family for the purpose of making A/his heirs the messianic nation bringing salvation ?

    Hats
    March 4, 2003 - 05:41 am
    Along with Ginger, I would like to thank Persian for an understanding of the word JIHAD. I had begun to feel fear everytime the word was mentioned on the news. I had no idea it could mean struggle, even a personal struggle.

    Hats
    March 4, 2003 - 05:54 am
    In the first fifty-four pages, I thought it was interesting that Feiler wrote about the little bit of knowledge we have about Abraham in any holy book. So, if a philosopher writes about Abraham, Abraham becomes a philosopher. If an astronomer writes about Abraham, he makes Abraham a star gazer. It seems that Abraham is enlarged to fit our personal likes or dislikes, that is if we read any other secular books about him.

    Lou2
    March 4, 2003 - 05:55 am
    Can anyone help me out here? On pages 28 and 29, Feiler tells a story about Abraham cast into the furnace. I have never heard or read that one. Does anyone know of a source for that story, from any point of view, Jewish, Christian or Islamic?

    Ella, in your message about the possible destruction of ancient sights in a war, were you holding out hope that there may be evidence there of Abraham, if we could only explore? Or did that thought just come from my wishful thinking?

    Lou

    Ann Alden
    March 4, 2003 - 07:57 am
    Again, I feel like I am in a class learning all about Abraham plus the three faiths. I wish that I could get the map of the Muslims who live around the world. Its right here in my lap but I'll have to think of a way to put it up.

    Lou2, I too have been wondering about that story of the Abraham and the fiery furnace. I thought that story was about another bibilical figure. Like, Daniel? I will go look it up elsewhere. Here is a Judaism page and an explanation of the fiery furnace which is long but worth reading. Abraham-FieryFurnace

    Notice that the story is in the Midrash. Now, I have to look that up!

    Harold Arnold
    March 4, 2003 - 08:01 am
    Alf, I did not notice any particular difference between the Feiler story of Abraham and his account give in the bible except that Feiler points out the fact that it was centuries after Abram when each faith interpreted the stories to emphasize their particular purpose with resulting significant differences between the three faiths.

    And Lou, I too was surprised at the mention of the furnace incident described by Feiler on P-28. He notes that this was an account added by a later interpreter. Is it in the Book of Genesis? Perhaps one of you who are more of a scriptural scholar than I can comment further on both Alf's and Lou's questions.

    Ann Alden
    March 4, 2003 - 08:07 am
    Hey, Harold, we were posting at the same time so take a look at the link that I put up above(Post #136) as its a good explanation of where the story comes from by a Rabbi. We ought to put a permanent link to his page, "Ask the Rabbi" in the header. He is very good at writing the explanation in simple terms. Here is the explanation of "midrash" from the same site, Midrash

    And once again, Abraham-Idols-Fiery Furnace

    Ann Alden
    March 4, 2003 - 08:32 am
    Here is a picture of a "ziggurat" Ziggurat

    . The Sumerians built their temples on platforms, one platform on top of another, some temples reaching higher than others, apparently to reach nearer to heaven. These temples have been called ziggurats. Images of Ziggurats: at Ur, at Babylon.

    GingerWright
    March 4, 2003 - 08:45 am
    Ann

    I read the link on Abraham-Fiery Furnace and so apprieciate it as I had Never heard about it. Now to check out your link on Midrash.

    Ella Gibbons
    March 4, 2003 - 10:12 am
    How very fascinating, Ann - thank you for those clickables. I copied the Rabbi's answer as to Abraham smashing those idols and here it is:

    "The Jewish people received two Torah's at Mount Sinai. One was the Written Torah (a.k.a. the Five Books of Moses) while the other is known as the Oral Torah as it was not written down and was kept as an oral tradition. In time, because the Jews were being scattered throughout the world in our hard exile from the Land of Israel, the Oral Torah was also committed to paper, and it could be that the story of Abraham smashing the idols (which is a true story) was committed to paper at that time. Nevertheless, even though it was written down at that time, the origin of the story goes back to the time of Abraham."

    And that picture of a ziggurat is great!

    Lou, I think archeologists would be hoping right now that some of those historical sites will not be destroyed, don't you? Or artists, architects - everyone who loves old sites, old buildings. I know I love them and it always saddens me that a city will destroy the old to build anew, for example, our own train station, which had so much history. My husband left from there (as did hundreds of others) to go to WWII - he spent three days on the train to get to the west coast, San Diego, where he was trained to be a signalman in the Navy.

    Ella Gibbons
    March 4, 2003 - 10:25 am
    MAHLILA - that was just a terrific post, thank you so very much. We need - or I needed - just that sort of information. I've been very wrong and will now try to steer the right course. I won't remember all you told me, but will try to remember these two things: (1) Islam in the name of a religion, and (2) a Muslim (or Moslem) is one who believes in Islam.

    Then Harold comes along and throws in the word "coptic" but I looked that up in the dictionary and it is "the Afro-ASiatic language of the Copts (who are natives of Egypt descended from ancient Egyptian stock and members of the Coptic Church)"

    Can I remember it all? Hey, I sorry to say that at 74 years of age, a little fading of the memory, just a tad-bit, has occured but I'll try. You know it helps to write things down - I just wrote "Islam and Muslim" down, so I can get that straight.

    Ann and I are both wearing out our dictionaries! Hahaha Isn't it wonderful to learn something new each day!

    Hats
    March 4, 2003 - 11:18 am
    I have been reading the information over and over. It is a lot to learn. This is all new knowledge for me. I am trying to digest all of it. Thanks Ann and everyone for the links. They are very helpful. When you don't hear from me, I am lurking and learning.

    Ella Gibbons
    March 4, 2003 - 12:23 pm
    Hi HATS! My problem (among many) is that I know, of course, that Jews believe in the Jewish religion and Christians believe in the Christian religion, but now we have Arabs, some of which are Muslims who believe in the Islamic religion and other Arabs who are Christians and coptics, etc. It does get confusing. I would love to take a college course in religion, just never got around to it. Parking at our local university is just atrocious and there are no buses where we live; also the university is quite some distance away.

    I have a problem on page 23 and hesitate to bring it to the discussion as it may stimulate a religious discussion and we don't want that; however perhaps briefly someone can explain Feiler's words. I will paraphrase:

    God has created humankind (that brings a smile, not a "man" as in most bibles), God needs them as He wants them to be his representatives on earth.

    But they disappoint - Adam and Eve are the first and God banishes them. Ten generations pass (???) and He decides to start over so he chooses Noah, but he disappoints; ten more generations pass (???), humankind attempt to build a tower to the heavens and He is disappointed again. (An aside here, as a child I was taught that as punishment for building this temple, God caused all the people to talk in different languages, well….. it made sense to me as a child as to why there are different languages)

    Now, God tried again to find someone faithful, who will appreciate His blessings. He chose Abraham.

    My problem with that is I always believed, when I believed, if I believe, etc., that God was omnipotent, omniscient. He could foresee what was to happen.

    Did not He know that all would disappoint? That question came long before this discussion. What does the Torah or the Koran say about God creating "humankind."

    Another point on page 27 (Carolyn, look at this page for date - 3rd line) - Feiler is telling us that all three religions interpreted the story of Abraham hundreds and thousands of years after Abraham was born. Feiler says:

    "All three religions joined in this interpretive process, though Jews necessarily came first, probably beginning around the third century B.C.E……In an elaborate, historical psychoanalysis, the children of Abraham slowly re-created the story of their forefather's early life in an effort to better understand their own. …….This process initiates a rich paradox: God may have made humans in his image; we humans made Abraham in ours."


    That last sentence is one of the central themes of the book, do you agree?

    On page 31 (Again, Carolyn read 3rd paragraph) we read that the "Koran was dictated to Muhammed ibn Abdullah, an Arab trader from the prestigious Qurysh tribe, over a period of twenty-two years, beginning in 610 C.E. The revelations came directly from Allah and were deeply painful for the prophet, who was caught unawares by his mission."

    Great Timeline (Religions) for everything you ever wanted to know and then some (scroll down, down) and remember it is all conjectural: Sacred Texts"

    Ella Gibbons
    March 4, 2003 - 12:32 pm
    Want to say Hi to ALF! Good to see you here and I think Harold answered your question. Hope you get your book soon!

    Lou2
    March 4, 2003 - 01:19 pm
    Ann, thanks so much for the source for the Abraham in the firy furnace. Interesting... I don't know if my head's gonna hold all this learning!!

    The firy furnace story in the Old Testament is in Daniel Chapter 3-- about Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. Daniel was the one who was thrown into the lions' den-- Daniel chapter 6.

    Ella, I also noticed the comments about God starting over--(page 23). The stories were all familiar, but I'd never drawn Feiler's conclusion.

    Yesterday on a library trip we found A History of the Jews, by Paul Johnson. I'm finding things that I'd like to bring here to compare and contrast, when I've read a little further. I think it will give us more to think about with the 80 Abrahams.

    Lou

    BaBi
    March 4, 2003 - 01:31 pm
    Going back a ways, I greatly enjoyed reading about that marvelous 3-yr-old. However, I question the statement: "We want Bachar to grow among us, to get acquainted with our beliefs, our value system ... and then he will be free to be who he wants to be." I have no quarrel whatsoever with the desire to have Bachar grow up learning the beliefs and value systems of his own people, BUT, I also believe that what one learns in the early years of life pretty much determines who one is going to be. It does not limit ones potential to develop, but fairly well sets the "beliefs and values" under which one will live.

    I'm glad one of our posters found the source of the 'Abraham and the fiery furnace' story, as there is nothing about it in either the Christian or Jewish Bibles, and I don't think it's in the Koran, either. There was a story of a fiery furnace in the book of Daniel, but it involved old Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.

    Hats, interesting you should mention astrologers seeing Abraham as a star-gazer. He is said to be from the land of the Chaldeans, and the term Chaldeans is frequently translated as 'astrologers' in the Bible. Apparently, 'star-gazing' is strongly associated with them as a people.

    Ella, you have touched on a strong theological issue when you pointed out the discrepancy between God's 'disappointment', and the teaching that God is omniscient. I'll stick my neck out. (Safe enough from here.) I believe that while God knows what the outcome of history will be (since he has already decided that), he did leave himself ample opportunity to enjoy (or not!) a surprise when he gave mankind free will. There are too many instances in scripture such as you describe to adhere too rigidly to the doctrine of omniscience. Just look at verses beginning "I thought", followed shortly after by a 'but'. My personal belief is, we can't stop God's long-term purposes, but we sure can disappoint...or please...him in the short-term. ...Babi

    Lou2
    March 4, 2003 - 03:00 pm
    Feiler says on page10 : "But where could I find him? Abraham, if he existed at all, left no evidence- no buildings or rugs or love letters to his wife." Am I being to literal if I say this means Feiler is saying there is no archaeological evidence of Abraham?

    From The History of the Jews: In the Cave of Machpelah in Hebron are the Tombs of the Patriarchs. One sepulchre is Abraham's and one Sarah's "according to ancient tradition". (page 3)

    Feiler, p. 27: "All three religions joined in this interpretive process, though Jews necessarily came first, probably beginning around the their century BCE. Every aspect of Abraham's life was open to retelling." And he goes on from there talking about this process of re-telling Abraham's story.

    From The History of the Jews: "The value of the Bible as a historical record has been a matter of intense argument for over 200 years". (page 5) Until about 1800, "the predominant view among scholars and layfolk alike was fundamentalist:… divinely inspired and true in whole and detail… though many Jewish and Christian scholars "had maintained for centuries that the early books of the Bible in particular"… should be considered as symbols or metaphor. Beginning with German scholars in the 19th Century the first 5 books or Pentateuch were now presented as orally transmitted legends that were carefully edited and adapted to provide "historical justification and divine sanction for religious beliefs and rituals for post-Exile Isrealite establishment". (page 6) For years there text scholars prevailed. With the development of "scientific archaeology a countervailing force has been exerted…". (page 7) Evidence has been found to validate the flood. "In 1920's, Sir Leonard Woolley found and excavated Ur, an important Sumerian city of the fourth and third millennia BC…" (Page 9)

    There is much more I want to share, but want you to read and enjoy and not be overwhelmed, so will stop here and continue in another post.

    Lou

    Hats
    March 4, 2003 - 03:53 pm
    Babi, that is so interesting. I did not know about the Chaldeans and Astronomy. Reading this book with the group is very helpful. Bruce Feiler's style of writing is simple, but there is so much new information.

    Ann Alden
    March 4, 2003 - 03:53 pm
    And is God a male or a female or a spirit in the good books portrayed here. As the books were written mostly by men, that must be why we just don't question whether he/she is of either sex. Hmmmmmmm! Sorry, the devil made me do it!

    GingerWright
    March 4, 2003 - 04:43 pm
    Babi

    Ihad very long post for you pertaining to the three yr old child and the some about me but it would not post and kicked off of S/N and I became a Guest on S/N but am Back with all but just cannot remember at this time what I said but will think on it.

    Ann

    I wonder what will be said about this and will wait for some to give there opinons as this not just a Christian discussion.

    Ginger

    kiwi lady
    March 4, 2003 - 04:47 pm
    I am comfortable with God as male entity and I am also comfortable with the fact that my country is run by women. I am not excessively prejudiced against either sex if they are in authority.

    Carolyn

    pedln
    March 4, 2003 - 05:37 pm
    Hats, I sure do agree with you here that there is a lot to learn, to absorb, to sort out. As I read last night I kept thinking what a mammoth undertaking it was for all these philosophers, oral traditionalists, writers, scholars, whoever, to bring all this knowledge, from many centuries into some kind of common order. (As this sentence is not.) As mere mortals, we should be lucky to learn only an nth of what has gone before us.

    To all who have provided links to help our understanding, thanks. In an earlier discussion (Seven Sisters) we had a link in the heading that linked to the many links that were provided throughout the discussion. Would is be possible to have something like that here? It would be very helpful.

    Mahlia, I'm grateful for your explanation of jihad, and for your information about Arabs and Muslims. I remembered some of that from what you provided in the discussion of "House of Sand. .", but it was good to see it again, in depth. Thank you.

    GingerWright
    March 4, 2003 - 06:28 pm
    Babi

    I have grown pertaining to religion and have now found that I love God (remember God has many names in different languages) and hope to achive the purpose in life that God has for me.

    Ann

    I believe that God is a Spirit and be whatever God chooses as God created us man and women right and can do whatever in our lives If we let it work. I do believe that God has allowed me to have a part of that Spirit. I pray (just the spoken word and not repletion get an answer from his spirit. Be Gods answer good or bad and accept God's answer.

    We have many creature that are both Male and Female and do have the ability to reproduce such as the seahorse en al. So Who knows but I guess we will find out later.

    Still searching, Ginger

    GingerWright
    March 4, 2003 - 08:07 pm
    pedln

    So Good to see you here. I Will be Watchin to see Your post and thoughts on this Very Special discussion.

    Ella Gibbons
    March 4, 2003 - 08:15 pm
    This is going to be a very short post, it's late (for me), but did want to say to BABI – thanks for the "try" old chum! Free will! Oh, golly, what a complicated issue that is, let's not try it now – leave that to the Rabbis, the ministers, - Imans (is that correct?). I'll look that up tomorrow, there's no time like the present for putting off things!

    LOU – tomorrow (I hope there's no law against putting off things, haha) I'm going to look on the Internet for the "Cave of Machpelah in Hebron" – that is fascinating,! We must find out – and your other material is equally intriguing, keep typing, we want it all!

    HATS, GINGER, ANN! Thanks for your posts, more tomorrow! CAROLYN, yes, I agree – God can be man, does it matter?– and WOMEN CAN RUN THE COUNTRY FROM THE CORPORATE BOARDS OF AMERICA.

    PEDLIN (another friend from Washington!) – an "nth" is all that is in me tonight. But I did put all the clickables in the heading (Links) – that's an excellent suggestion and thank you so much for it. It also makes it easier for newcomers that don't want to be turning back pages and pages of posts. Any other suggestions for our discussion here would be qppreciated.

    Goodnight all - ella

    GingerWright
    March 4, 2003 - 08:41 pm
    pedln

    So Good to see you here. I Will be Watchin to see Your post and thoughts on this Very Special discussion.

    Jonathan
    March 4, 2003 - 08:48 pm
    Among the idols that Abraham smashed were those of King Nimrod. The king seems to have turned his back on them while feasting with his guests, leaving Abraham to mind the idols.

    'The feast ended, the king returned, and when he saw all his idols shivered in pieces, he inquired who had been guilty of the outrage...the king was exceedingly wroth at Abraham, and ordered him to be cast into prison.'

    (Abraham endured and survived a year in prison, supplied with food and drink by the angel Gabriel. Then an exasperated King ordered the hangman to use his sword on Abraham's throat, but...'the sword could not cut his flesh. The harder it was pressed against his throat, the more it broke into pieces.')

    'Then the mother of Abraham came to him and implored him to pay homage to Nimrod and escape the impending misfortune (death by fire). But he said to her: 'O mother, water can extinguish Nimrod's fire, but the fire of God will not die out for evermore. Water cannot quench it.' When his mother heard these words, she spake, 'May the God whom thou servest rescue thee from the fire of Nimrod.'

    'Abraham...raised his eyes heavenward, and spoke, 'O Lord my God, Thou seest what this sinner purposes to do unto me!' His confidence in God was unshakable. When the angels received the Divine permission to save him, and Gabriel approached him, and asked, 'Abraham, shall I save thee from the fire?' he replied, 'God in whom I trust, the God of heaven and earth, will rescue me,' and God seeing the submissive spirit of Abraham, commanded the fire, 'Cool off and bring tranquillity to my servant Abraham.'

    'No water was needed to extinguish the fire. The logs burst into buds, and all the different kinds of wood put forth fruit, each tree bearing its own kind. The furnace was transformed into a royal pleasance, and the angels sat therein with Abraham. When the King saw the miracle, he said: 'Great witchcraft! Thou makest it known that fire hath no power over thee, and at the same time thou showest thyself unto the people sitting in a pleasure garden.' But the princes of Nimrod interposed all with one voice, 'Nay, our lord, this is not witchcraft, it is the power of the great God, the God of Abraham, beside whom there is no other god, and we acknowledge that He is God, and Abraham is His servant.' All the princes and all the people believed in God at this hour, in the Eternal, the God of Abraham, and they all cried out, 'The Lord He is God in heaven above and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.'

    I'm enjoying the discussion, and couldn't help posting a few paragraphs from Legends of the Jews, by Louis Ginzberg. The rabbi quoted in the link on the fiery furnace probably got the information from Ginzberg, who in turn got his 'legends' from all manner of sources. He was a very eminent scholar. My one volume edition of the Legends (there are eight or nine) has about sixty pages dealing with Abraham! Is it all true? It seems to be for millions.

    I don't have the book, but following the posts is very interesting.

    Ginger, you're an inspiration. You're going to make a believer out of me.

    GingerWright
    March 4, 2003 - 09:46 pm
    Jonathan

    Thank You so much for saying that I am an inspireration.

    I do not understand When you say make a beliver out of me as I am just telling things from my point of view and stating the facts as I know them wanting to understand so Much more.

    This is about a book of three faiths and I want to learn and that is why I read and enjoy S/N and S/N Books and Literature so much.

    Your S/N sister, Ginger

    Lou2
    March 5, 2003 - 03:32 am
    Jonaathan, Thanks! THanks! Thanks! I was hoping someone would be able to give us the full flavor of the fiery furnace story.

    The story of the two brothers, page 13 and 14... I'd never hear that one either... "That story is shared by all three religions"... but the Christian part of those three is so huge... Is this familiar to you all? I don't believe it is in the Bible, which is the source I'm most familiar with. Can someone tell us where it came from... other than Feiler?

    Ella, thanks, I'm trying to decide if Johnson disagrees with Feiler, so glad you want more. I'll try to be concise, but don't want to take things out of context.

    Lou

    ALF
    March 5, 2003 - 05:30 am
    So-oooo, then , are you saying that this story about Abraham is a legend?

    Hats
    March 5, 2003 - 05:43 am
    Hi Pedln,

    I remember Mahlia from House of Sand and Fog too. She helped us learn so much in that discussion and here she is doing it again in this discussion helping us learn about other cultures.

    Lou2
    March 5, 2003 - 06:14 am
    Alf, I don't know who you are asking if Abraham is a legend, my answer is no, he is not a legend. I read your message as I came to post the "stuff" below. "Abraham as legend" is exactly what has me on this tear through Johnson's A History of the Jews.

    Johnson deals with the period before Abraham and A's life and times in the first 25 pages of his history. So wading through this without simply copying the full text, to give the important (to me) points and at the same time trying to be as complete and as fair as possible is not easy! While I am willing to accept Feiler's theory that Abraham was made and remade in Jewish and Islamic legends [I can say that because I have no stake in either of these religions, if you have a stake there, how do you feel about his claim?], I cannot accept that the Abraham of the Bible was not a real person nor that the Bible is propaganda or PR for a particular point of view. And I think Johnson's history shows that the Bible is speaking of real people and that, while versions and translations of the Bible exist, the basic message is not lost.

    There is a long section on the process of establishing a rough date for the patriarchs and that date "enables us to relate them both to archaeological records and to the various literary archives which have now emerged from Bronze Age Syria and Mesopotamia. These last are important because they enable us not only to confirm but to explain episodes in the patriarchal stories." (page 11) Kathleen Kenyon, Nelson Glueck and A. Parrot all found artifacts from the patriarchal age, to include cave-tomb burials, patriarchal type settlements and thousands of tablets. The Ebla and Mari tablets duplicate names of the patriarchs and document many situations parallel to those described in the Bible. Clay tablets from Nuzi "produces exact parallels with Abraham's dealing with his wife Sarah…" [There are many more examples here] "One of the strongest objections to the contention of Wellhausen and others that the early Bible books were compiled and edited to suit the religious beliefs of a much later age has always been that many episodes in them do no such thing. They embody customs which were evidently strange and inexplicable to the later editors of the first millennium BC who, in their reverence for the text and traditions handed down to them simply copied them out, without any attempt at rationalization. Together they [the tablets mentioned above] help us to create a picture of the Patriarchal society which illuminates the Bible text." (page 12)

    In a discussion of one particular passage that he claims is "perhaps the most mysterious and obscure passage in the entire Bible" (Jacob's night long struggle with the angel) Johnson says editors or transcribers were "far from adapting it to suit their religious understanding, reproduced it verbatim because it was Torah and sacred." (page 20)

    I hope you have gained something from this long message. I'm through with this I promise!! Just something I had to post.

    Lou

    Harold Arnold
    March 5, 2003 - 07:54 am
    Jonathan, it is good to hear from you again. I was fascinated by your story of the Firery furnace account and the Abraham/Nimrod confrontation that you gave us. Any further comment you may choose to contribute from your source will be most welcome.

    Note to all: "The Legends lf the Jews," edited by Louis Ginzberg that Jonathan mentioned would seem to be a major works of at least 7 volumes. Click Here For Information From the B & N Catalog

    Lou2
    March 5, 2003 - 09:32 am
    OK, I'm not too slow here.... The third time through I got it!!! In the Birth chapter, beginning page 17... That the part about no physical record of A.... BUT on page 26: "Probably less than 1% of the stories told about A appear in the bible." So the deal is, Feiler's saying, not that the Bible stories are legends, but that the legends came after the Bible stories. "Denied a childhood in Genesis, he gets one in death...." p. 27.

    OK.... Now I can go on.... I'm looking for agreements about the 3 religions... and looking... and looking!

    Lou

    Ella Gibbons
    March 5, 2003 - 10:47 am
    Thanks for the information you gave us, JONATHAN! Keep reading and posting when you can, we need all the help we can get – it is difficult to absorb all this stuff, particularly if all you know is the Christian bible (and haven't been in a bible study class for upteen years – speaking for myself). All of us want to learn or we wouldn't be in this discussion.

    You quoted "His confidence in God was unshakable" – yes, indeed it was. As we have all said before it is faith, and faith alone, that enables us to believe in our partiular religion and trod the right path according to our beliefs.

    LOU – and ALL OF YOU. I found several references to the Cave of Machpelah, but the best one, I think, is here: Cave of Machpelah in Hebron

    I had to look up the word "cenotaph" – wow, hope I can retain one-fourth of what I'm learning here, my school days are long behind me – and this is were it gets very confusing for the dictionary says – "A monument erected in honor of a dead person whose remains lie elsewhere."

    FIGURE THAT ONE OUT! If you do tell us all!

    LOU – the story of the two brothers was new to me also – never heard of that! The man telling the story is a David Wilna who had attended a Jewish day school, then a Roman Catholic University and it is David who says this story is shared by all three religions – NOT FEILER! But I did like this David's statement – "the question is not whether God can bring peace into the world. The question is: Can we?"

    Am loving to read all the text from the book you have, but there is so much in the Feiler book to absorb, I can't promise to remember or ask questions about any of it.

    ALF – I don't think Abraham is a legend and I don't think many of us do. Was that your question?




    Let's journey on to the chapter titled "CALL" – shall we? I have much to say but this is getting to be a long post so I'll be brief now. Is everyone familiar with the phrase -"I heard the call and answered " - (referring to God calling someone to perform a task, whether becoming a minister, priest, rabbi, nun – you name it) I have heard the phrase and known people who answered the call and, certainly, Abraham did.

    This is where the meaning of the verses in the heading is located. I'd love to hear from all of ;you with stories of your experiences with the "Call" and what you think of the explanation on the first few pages of this chapter.

    Later, Ella

    Lou2
    March 5, 2003 - 10:53 am
    Cave of Machpelah in Hebron!!! I don't know about you, Ella, but that's not my idea of a cave!!! I'm thinking Carlsbad Caverns, here!

    Lou

    tigerliley
    March 5, 2003 - 10:57 am
    I am still waiting for the "call" but have not lost hope.....

    Ella Gibbons
    March 5, 2003 - 11:00 am
    Agreed, LOU! hahaha Wouldn't you love to see these place.

    Here is another site: Cave of Machpelah

    Lou2
    March 5, 2003 - 11:04 am
    And you know something?? I'm wondering how in the world you could "loose" this thing?? Why would you have to discover it?? Doesn't sound as though it's been buried from what I read??? When I read discovered the cave of...., I'm thinking a hole in the ground or a hole in the mountain?????

    Lou

    GingerWright
    March 5, 2003 - 11:33 am
    Ella, Lou and all,

    The caves are very interesting as as I was looking at them I thought Well guess I will be in a cave then but oh the different words that mean the same thing as I think today my cave is called a mausoleum. Please Smile everybody. My name and birth date is on my Cave.

    Ginger

    Hats
    March 5, 2003 - 11:47 am
    Ella,

    Thank you for the links! I never could have imagined what they really look like. I think it says on the Cave of Machpelah that Jewish people can only visit this cave ten days a year. I might have misinterpreted what I read. I read it on the first link. If I didn't misinterpret it, why can't they visit everyday of the year? Are these the most Holiest times of the year? It certainly is a beautiful place.

    Hats
    March 5, 2003 - 11:59 am
    Hi Ella and All,

    I read about the ten days on the fourth photograph down and on the left side.

    BaBi
    March 5, 2003 - 12:10 pm
    Ella, I would suppose that most of our war memorials are cenotaphs, since they commemorate men who died and are buried elsewhere.

    All I can say about the "call", is that people who feel they have had the experience of being in the presence of God have no doubts about WHO it was. There is an incredible sense of certainty, and the only appropriate response seems to be "Yes, Lord". Whether that is a "call", I can't say.

    One quick flashback to the subject of God, spirit, male or female, I think we confuse the terms male/female with masculine/feminine. If God is Spirit, and we are made in His image, than it would surely be our spiritual selves that we're talking about. And if man(kind) is created in God's image, than God must contain within himself all those characteristics that we tend to think of as 'masculine' or 'feminine'. Like strength, courage, compassion, tenderness, etc. Right? ....Babi

    kiwi lady
    March 5, 2003 - 12:12 pm
    Yes I have known personally someone who had the call. He went to bed one night and woke up an entirely different person. His whole person seemed to be shining not like gold but in an undefinable way. He never became a pastor but in his daily life he gave help and hope to many. I think God chose him for his personality and fearlessness. This persons call came in the form of a dream the like of which he had never experienced before. He said he experienced the feeling of leaving the earth during this dream. This is not a second hand encounter the person was very close to me.

    Carolyn

    Hats
    March 5, 2003 - 12:31 pm
    Thank you, Jonathan for the information about Abraham and the fiery furnace and Nimrod. It is all so interesting. It takes me awhile to digest all of this information.

    GingerWright
    March 5, 2003 - 12:52 pm
    Hats

    I like your answer to is God male or female and it makes sence to me. Thank You for posting your thoughts on this.

    I apprieate Jonathan's information also and am looking forward to hearing more.

    Ginger

    ALF
    March 5, 2003 - 02:34 pm
    Didn't someone post that Feiler had said there was no direct link of proof that Abraham existed? No archeological evidence, if you will?

    Today Walking Thru the Bible, by Feiler came. I ordered both books on the same day and Abraham hasn't made it yet. I'm going to check thru this book about A and see what the author has to say.

    Thank you for putting up with me, sans book in hand.

    Lou2
    March 5, 2003 - 03:06 pm
    Well, Alf, if your input has been without a book, I'll sure look out for what is to come, now that you are armed and dangerous!!! LOL

    Lou

    Ella Gibbons
    March 5, 2003 - 07:25 pm
    Hahaha, Lou! You've met ALF in another discussion I betcha! She's a whiz when she gets going.

    Yes, ALF, Feiler says there is no actual proof of Abraham anywhere, not even underground, so when Lou posted this from the book - HISTORY OF THE JEWS -I was surprised at these words: "In the Cave of Machpelah in Hebron are the Tombs of the Patriarchs. One sepulchre is Abraham's and one Sarah's "according to ancient tradition"

    Believing that the word "tomb" or "sepulchre" meant a burial place I looked it up, but lo and behold just a monument to Abraham, Sarah, etc. Either I misunderstood or the book is incorrect, but I truly believe there is no record of Abraham anywhere on earth.

    God said to Abraham - "Go forth from your native land and from your father's house to the land that I will show you."

    Then he proceeds to state the verses in the heading which Feiler interprets as a contract between God and Abraham.

    Abraham must leave his native land and his father's house when he is old and has no children to support him; and he must believe, take it on faith, that God has spoken to him.

    God's side of the contract is contained in those verses - those promises of God are very grandiose, indeed.

    FAITH!

    A little word, a big idea.

    If you truly believed God had spoken to you - called you - would you leave your present home and go to where God asked you to go?

    Of course, Abraham had no idea WHERE HE WAS GOING!

    Often, people today seem to know what God wants them to do. Missionaries get calls to go to foreign lands, ministers get a calling to preach, rabbis probably do (don't they?) Now we need Mahlia to tell us about the Muslims and what they believe and if they are called by God.

    Carolyn, thanks for telling us of your friend and it all came in a dream and he believed it and was an entirely different person - isn't that amazing. Most of us would probably wake up and think what a strange dream we had last night and go to work and tell it to everyone.

    How could he know it was real? Perhaps we'll never know unless it happens to us. Which reminds me of Allah who was frightened when God first spoke to him. I hope I have this right, I'm subject to errors as you all know!!!! But I think I would be more like Allah - frightened if I thought it was for real.

    I'll tell you a strange story tomorrow of a childhood friend of mine which I will never forget.

    later, ella

    kiwi lady
    March 5, 2003 - 08:44 pm
    Ella the dream was real to him because he said he felt this glow all over his body like a touch from God and he was also told he would have a limited number of years to do his work. This proved to be true, he became terminally ill at 43 and died at 49. Looking at him the next day it was as if he had become young and innocent an entirely different skin tone even (after the dream of that night) He had the dream at age 34.

    Carolyn

    Jonathan
    March 5, 2003 - 08:59 pm
    The 'call' must be one of the most mysterious of human experiences. It's made out to be irresistable when it comes; and not to comply can have unusual consequences. As was the case, for example, with Jonah.

    I would like to say to Tigerliley that she is not alone with that hint of regret about not having been called as yet. In that respect Sarah and Abraham are terrific role models for older people. To be chosen in old age to show that with God all things are possible! But not to be called may in fact be just a test of one's faith. Then again, one can always reassure oneself with John Milton's immortal line:

    'They also serve who only stand and wait.'

    There is some comfort in that? Abraham is legendary, imo, but none the less real for that. Some think he is the first 'historical' human being. The marvellous stories told about him don't disprove it. They were meant to magnify his God in any case. Isn't it the idea of The God of Abraham which supplies the sense of religious community and descent? I wonder if this would provide the answer to Lou's 'looking for agreements about the 3 religions'? (165)

    Harold Arnold
    March 5, 2003 - 09:26 pm
    Here is another Link to the Tomb of the Patriarchs. It says Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Rebecca and Leah are buried there. This list is all of the patriarchs and matriarchs except for Rachel who the link says died in childbirth and is buried near Bethlehem. Obviously this claim is based on traditional belief not on verifiable records. It is an informative 300-word commentary. Click Here

    Marjorie
    March 5, 2003 - 09:29 pm
    Thank you for that link HAROLD.

    Hats
    March 6, 2003 - 03:31 am
    Hi Ella and All,

    Harold, thanks for the link.

    Carolyn, thanks for sharing your friend's story. I have never experienced a calling or a dream. John Milton's lines are encouraging to me. Thanks, Jonathan.

    Hi Marjorie.

    tigerliley
    March 6, 2003 - 06:56 am
    Thank you Jonathan....quite a nice post and I believe I may be one ot the ones who serve and stand and wait......never thought of it in that way....I know that I am a seeker.......lovely discussion....

    Hats
    March 6, 2003 - 07:11 am
    While reading the chapter about The Call, I am becoming more aware that it takes brave people and people full of faith to receive The Call. This quote really stood out to me.

    "The Call is saying that the relationship with God is not a relationship of belonging, it's a relationship of strangeness."

    I have a large print paperback from the library. In my book, this is on page 63.

    Anyway, after reading this quote, I would rather stand back and admire the chosen people who have heard God's voice in such a personal way. It does make me understand more deeply why Abraham is loved by all three religions.

    Ann Alden
    March 6, 2003 - 08:09 am
    Wonderful posts and super links to the centograph. As to the 'call', I agree with those who are still standing and waiting but also serving in their humble lives. I believe that we all respond to something inside us when it comes to our respect and love for each other. I don't think thats a 'call', but just the way we are made.

    Carolyn, what a powerful story you have told. How did that young man live the rest of his life after his dream? IMHO, there are many people all around us who are standing and serving quietly then leaving us with the example of their lives. Have they been 'called'? Maybe, maybe not.

    Not to bring up another belief, since we are dealing with these three for now, I can't help but remember Sidhartha(Hindu?) and his 'call' to the difficult task of achieving "humility" which he seemed to equate to perfecting his life. If I am remembering correctly, he kept returning to this life until he was humble.

    Back to Abraham who is the Father of these three faiths. Even if he were a legend, would it matter? We all may need a "hero" to follow and that's what the three beliefs here seem to do. Isn't there a book about the many faces of God? "The Hero of a Thousand Faces" by Joseph Campbell?

    Ann Alden
    March 6, 2003 - 08:23 am
    In searching around for studies about Abraham, I found this quote from a scholar, Kerry Shirt, and thought it worth copying here.

    This waxing and waning of scholars' attitude to history verses myth is an interesting phenomenon. This "higher criticism" of historicity of many areas, Homer, Christ, Shakespeare, and even Abraham comes and goes as George Steiner acknowledged. He noted that "the higher criticism assumed that if a text was very ancient or had been often reproduced, it would necessarily be corrupt. We are no longer so sure."[9] The criticism against Homer, Christ and Abraham dealt with the lack of evidence as proof of the mythological aspect of these stories. Yet, for all the talk, it turns out that Troy was very real.[10] In fact, the search for Troy inevitably led to the further serious, scientific investigation that Atlantis (of all things!)was Troy with Eberhard Zangger's excellent work.[11] Granted this is a most interesting twist, the idea here is that historic reality may be behind the myths all along after all. New attitudes to ancient ideas, usually pawned off as just old myths or stories, are now determining that many ancient areas once thought of as old wives tales are actually historic verities, such as Abraham, Enoch, Moses and the Patriarchal Histories and even Jesus. Erich Auerbach's famous comparison of Homer and Abraham revealed that the Biblical narrative was based on solid historical reality with Abraham in fact, being a real individual.[12] This interplay of myth verses historic reality is an ever ongoing discussion, and there is enough new material to justify itemizing in a footnote.[13]

    Harold Arnold
    March 6, 2003 - 08:29 am
    I agree with Ann concerning the unimportance of historical fact when we view the Abraham stories. I think Bruce Feiler handled this situation very well in the book. Essentially he said these are the stories, and they are all we have, even though there is no confirming historical proof. But Feiler continues to note archaeological and historical facts relative to 2nd millennia BCE immigration patterns and other existing contemporary historical events that fit the pattern of the stories. This corollary evidence lends substance to the Abrahamic stories even though it falls short of absolute proof a gap that can only be supplied through the Faith of each individual

    Ann Alden
    March 6, 2003 - 08:38 am
    And the word to pay attention to here is; FAITH. We all have our own way of dealing with our beliefs but in the end, it concerns our faith in a higher power.

    Lou2
    March 6, 2003 - 09:33 am
    In my re-reading of the Call chapter the concept that stood out for me was the idea of a "portable religion". And of course, all three of these are portable, aren't they?

    Lou

    Ella Gibbons
    March 6, 2003 - 10:20 am
    I'm running all over the place today, but one stop (I hope) will be the Library where I will try to get a book on the Islam religion.

    I feel like the man who gets lost and asks a cop for directions and the cop says - Well, you wouldn't start from here.

    I need to start somewhere else -we will get further into the Islam religion in Feiler's book, but since Mahlia has left, and I cannot find what I'm searching for on the Internet, I'll go to the Library (as Lou did when she wanted more information about the Jewish religion). Curiosity can be time-consuming!

    later, ella

    Malryn (Mal)
    March 6, 2003 - 10:40 am
    The Qur'an text

    Malryn (Mal)
    March 6, 2003 - 10:43 am
    A page about Islam with many links to follow on the left

    Malryn (Mal)
    March 6, 2003 - 10:49 am
    Islam and Abraham


    Abraham, Original Messenger of Islam

    BaBi
    March 6, 2003 - 03:23 pm
    In reading the chapter "The Call", I am finding some of Feiler's arguments weak, to say the least. He argues that Abraham was not truly monotheistic because he refers to God as "the Lord", "Almighty God", "Everlasting God". Almighty and everlasting are descriptive words, appropriate to use in referring to God. Why on earth should we think they are a reference to three different gods?

    Earlier, Feiler states that God seems to need Abraham to fulfill his purposes. In "The Call", he quotes David Wilna as saying that God doesn't need us. We should be committed to growth and self-understanding, not because God needs it, but for our own sakes. So God needs us, and God doesn't need us?

    The fulfilling of God's ultimate purposes and our personal spiritual growth may be related, but they are not the same thing. Since God's purpose and plan involve mankind, He does need people who will carry out his plans here. But on an individual basis, he does not need you or me specifically. I believe He cares for each of us and would like each of us to be a part of what He is doing. But the plan will be completed with or without this or that individual. So, yes, God needs men/women to serve Him; no, He doesn't need one particular individual or the whole thing collapses. I think that distinction needs to be made. ....Babi

    GingerWright
    March 6, 2003 - 07:33 pm
    Babi

    I agree with you that if the one God chooses to do his work and the person of his own Free will will not. God will find someone who will. God does let us make our own discisions. Thanks God. With All Due Respect I remain Your Servant.

    Ginger

    Ella Gibbons
    March 6, 2003 - 08:16 pm
    BABI - you put it very well here - "But on an individual basis, he does not need you or me specifically. I believe He cares for each of us and would like each of us to be a part of what He is doing." I certainly agree with that.

    Thanks, Mal, for all those links; they did not contain exactly what I needed and I got very tired of hunting on the Internet - a book in hand is so much nicer. Actually our Library had shelves full of books on the Islam religion so I chose two and from time to time I'll just put in a few pointers (quick and short) along the way as we have no one talking for the Muslims since Mahlia left us. Many of us came to this discussion specifically to learn more about this particular religion I feel.

    My story about the "Call." It began in my childhood while living next door to a Methodist minister and his two children, one of whom became a very good friend in grade school, probably from the age of four through 7, and we played together every day. Methodists move their ministers every five years to a new location, so other than meeting once in our teens (when we were completely out of touch, you know teenagers), I never heard from this friend for many years until one day, maybe 15-20 years later she sent me an invitation to her wedding where she was going to become a bride of Christ (a nun) and explained that she got the "Call" one evening a few years earlier listening to a choir on the radio. She had majored in music in college and was very accomplished in piano and vocal.

    She was overwhelmed by this choir and called the station to find out where it came from and learned it was from the Convent of the Abbey of Regina Laudis in Bethlem, Connecticut. She felt she had been called to go to this convent.

    Although it was strange that a Methodist daughter became a Catholic nun it was more strange that she was in a cloistered convent for life. She was never to leave there. She sent me many letters and plays that she wrote over the years (strange plays with alcoholics and love affairs all going astray). Wow, I thought, the minds of nuns!

    The years passed and one letter came telling me she was dying of cancer and she wanted me to visit her (I had been invited several times before), so I did. I must be honest here and tell you that I found nothing to be happy about in a cloistered convent (I apologize to all Catholics), but she sat behind a wooden grill and wouldn't come out of there at all so I could even hold her hand. She gave me an hour of her time then and I was ordered to return for another hour that evening.

    The next day was the same, I was to meet her at the grill on the dot of the hour, twice a day. It struck me as not being very friendly and other than reliving our childhood we had nothing to talk about. I left that evening (although my reservation was for 3 days) after telling her I must return home. It was all a very strange experience for me.

    My one and only experience with someone who had received the "Call."

    later, eg

    Harold Arnold
    March 6, 2003 - 08:42 pm
    Ella that is a touching story. The nun I know is not so cloisterde since she manages a social welfare office at the Espada Mission where I work on Tuesday afernoon in the National Park Visitor Center. Also a very uncloistered Franciscan brother lives in the rectory beside the old 18th century church. He serves several parishs as an organist. He seems a most happy and well adjusted person. Brother Jerome wearing his Franciscan robe appears in the last picture on the following page, Click Here

    Hats
    March 7, 2003 - 05:51 am
    Hi Ella,

    It is interesting to read about your friend's Calling. Reading about her plays made me think of Andrew Greely. I hope his name is right. You know, the Priest who writes novels. I haven't read one of his novels, but I thought about him while reading about your friend. His novels are far from religious novels, but many people enjoy them.

    My best friend was Catholic. She had five brothers and sisters. They went to Catholic School. I went to public school. I fell in love with Loretta's rosary. I wanted a rosary simply because they were so beautiful, and your hands looks so dainty as you counted your Hail Mary's. I liked the fact that she went to confession too. It seemed very mysterious, very different from just Sunday School. Of course, I think differently now. Those were my preadolescent thoughts. Now, I know that is not the way to choose a religion. My mother grew up Catholic and became a Methodist. So, she stopped me in my tracks. In my later years, I am not affiliated with any one religion. I believe in the need for God in my life and learning how to love my neighbor each and every day.

    Babi, I became confused about what Feiler was saying too.

    Mal, thanks for the links.

    Harold, thanks for introducing us to Brother Jerome. He looks like such a peaceful man. I think anyone who loves nature including beautiful birds and cares for them must be a kind person.

    Éloïse De Pelteau
    March 7, 2003 - 06:34 am
    I have been following this discussion since the beginning and I thank you for those interesting posts. I can't think that a book about Abraham would not reveal innermost feelings about beliefs, spirituality or religion.

    Abraham certainly had to have a call to leave his comfortable life in Ur and lead his whole household on an impossible journey just because God asked him to go. But he did I am certain of it and if I needed proof, I would ask myself why do billions of people practice one or the other of three faiths he originated.

    Faith is hard to explain and only when you have it can you fully understand the importance it has in a believer's life.

    I was touched by Ella's post about her childhood friend who became a nun, but I can understand her friend's desire to live that kind of life away from the "world" as they call life outside the convent. It is a very safe environment. Although I no longer practice Catholicism, I am still a Christian believer and the bible has influenced my daily life for the past 20 years. I don't need proof for what I believe in as I used to before, I believe in God and in Eternal Life.

    If Abraham succeeded in doing the will of God to the very end is important for believers of the three faiths we are studying now and I will keep on learning something new from everyone here.

    Eloïse

    Ann Alden
    March 7, 2003 - 08:42 am
    Ella, I looked up "Iman" here and have sent you a plethora of links to look at. What I learned from reading some of them is that the word "Iman" plus "Imaan" plus "Imam" and "Imaam" have very different meanings and my eyes and my brain are feeling twisted from trying to read all that. Thank goodness for Harold's lovely SUNNY pictures of the place where he volunteers and the priest. It was a relief to find that the sun is still up there!! Wasn't it? Oh why, oh why, am I in Ohi--o? Well, its supposed to be 59 degrees tomorrow. The car washes in town will be full! I had mine done yesterday! Hahahaha! Beat ya!

    One of the reasons we here seem to be so comfortable discussing this topic is that most of us have our faith(in whatever we believe in) under control and seem happy with where we are. Isn't is nice? Ahhhhh, I love it!! A perk of being old than dirt!! As Lorrie would put it!

    Ella Gibbons
    March 7, 2003 - 11:04 am
    Lovely pictures, Harold, but the one picture wherein you had changed the structure of the stone did not come through for me – I understand the principle that you talking about though.

    Hi HATS! Wonderful post! I, too, had a wonderful girlfriend with whom we double-dated many times before we both married the guys (remember that word?) I attended the Catholic church with her often - with a guy's handkerchief tied over my head as I had forgotten a head scarf. (Don't ask!) That is not a practice now in the Catholic church but it was then.

    I have seen Greeley's books – never read any of them, have any of you?

    ELOISE! So nice that you came in and posted your thoughts! I quote your statement – "I don't need proof for what I believe in as I used to before, I believe in God and in Eternal Life." That's FAITH! All three religions believe in God and have faith for an afterlife; they differ in some respects but I believe Feiler makes clear that in this one area they believe the same (see heading above for similarities in beliefs!) We are delighted that you posted your views and we hope you continue to do so.

    Ann, I received all those links, thanks – it all takes so much time to read and I hope I get to those; if not, I'll perhaps find something in the books I have.




    I opened my book to page 50 where Feiler is talking to Rabbi Belzer who believes that Abraham is a great model for Christians, Jews and Muslims as he answered a call from God - a God he knew nothing of – and Abraham didn't question. He didn't say – well, if you are God show me something. Anything.

    Rabbi Belzer said "Until you break away you're not grown up". Isn't that true? Our children do not truly make their own decisions until they leave home – they are not grown up until they are away from our influence. They need to break away, as Abraham broke away from his home, his father's influence.

    Further, the Rabbi concludes that the meaning of Abraham is – "it's okay not to be in your native land, not to have land at all. He left his father's house, knowing his father would always be in his heart. I'll go someplace and try something new. I'll cast my lot with a portable god- the God of everyone, everywhere."

    I'm not sure that I understand or believe all the Rabbi said (as Babi indicated, also), I'll quote this paragraph:

    "The Call is saying that the relationship with God is not a relationship of belonging, it's a relationship of strangeness. We're all aliens. Abraham is blessed-the nations of the world are blessed-because he had the courage to go to another place and make himself a stranger. Because, believe me, at some time in our lives, all of us have to go to another place, too, and make ourselves strangers."


    A relationship with God is a relationship of strangeness? But the Rabbi also talks of a portable God, he goes with you everywhere and you are not leaving him, so the two – the concept of the strangeness of God and the portability of God is confusing. Maybe it shouldn't be, but is for me.

    Take what you will from all of that chapter; tomorrow we commence with the discussion of Ishmael and the conflicts with God that Abraham faces and we all face. This will be a very intriguing conversation!!!.

    I agree we all have to go to other places in our lives, different schools, different cities, different jobs, all of that, but doesn't God go with us and why should he be a stranger?

    In a sense, even death is a strange place, but then we will meet face-to-face with God, so he will no longer be a stranger, but not all believe that either.

    later - ella

    Lou2
    March 7, 2003 - 11:56 am
    Ella said :have seen Greeley's books – never read any of them, have any of you?

    I read every Greeley book I could get my hands on for several years. Then one day I realized they were grim, dark and terribly violent and I wanted no part of them any longer.

    And I compare them to Merton books... so different.

    Jonny

    BaBi
    March 7, 2003 - 12:16 pm
    I have read many of Greeley's books and enjoyed them. I think the ones I like best are about the extended Irish families, the remarkable Irish women, and the overall Greeley idea that people are fascinating and talent is to be treasured.

    Glad to get into another chapter of Feiler. I definitely could not relate to the idea that the relationship with God was one of strangeness. ...Babi

    Persian
    March 7, 2003 - 01:17 pm
    ELLA - in reference to your post #180 (I think), Allah is the Arabic word for God and the individual to whom God spoke directly was the Prophet Mohamed. Thus, I assume you are likening yourself to the Prophet Mohamed, NOT to God.

    In reference to earlier posts about the story of Abraham in the fiery furnace: this is indeed included in the Holy Qur'an and can be found in Sura 21:65-69.

    It may be helpful to those posters who earlier mentioned difficulty comprehending the ancient custom of burial in caves (i.e., Abraham et al) to think of the similar custom among the Native Americans of the 18th and 19th centuries, who buried their dead to protect the bodies from scavengers - just as was the custom in the ancient biblical time. Later, according to tribal custom, the burial caves were marked with some type of insignia or left without identification.

    A brief comment about "The Call" from the Islamic standpoint. The Prophet Mohamed received "the Call" directly from God IN God's voice and Mohamed was scared to death. He first thought he was dreaming; then he thought he was losing his mind; then he (and later some of his counterparts)thought he was having seizures and experiencing an "aura" (which is especially acute to epileptics). Prophet Mohamed sought immediate refuge after God's first message with his wife, Khadija, who assured him that he was sane and that God had chosen him for a special role in life. Throughout his lifetime - during the times when God spoke to him directly - Mohamed ALWAYS was frightened at first, but then came to realize that God had chosen him. And Mohamed responded. Perhaps he was too frightened NOT to!

    kiwi lady
    March 7, 2003 - 01:41 pm
    Most of the people I have spoken to who have had a direct experience of God have not been scared- only at first. When they have realised what had happened they have been full of joy but also full of reverence.

    Carolyn

    Ella Gibbons
    March 7, 2003 - 02:07 pm
    MAHLIA, GOOD TO HAVE YOU BACK!


    Yep, I was in error when I said this: "Perhaps we'll never know unless it happens to us. Which reminds me of Allah who was frightened when God first spoke to him. I hope I have this right, I'm subject to errors as you all know!!!!

    I should have said the Prophet Mohamed. Now, you all have to correct me when I get all these terms, phrases, names, etc. wrong! Promise you will help?????? Do I get a C for getting the "frightened" part right? Hahaha

    Trying to understand Medicare forms and straightening out papers for the IRS is enough of a challenge and I'm surprised I'm able to read any of it!

    You are probably right in that the Prophet Mohamed was too frightened NOT to respond.

    What would I do? Hide in the closet! I'm very much of a chicken - squark, squark! And because of that, I would never be called, who can hear me from the closet.

    georgehd
    March 7, 2003 - 02:14 pm
    Just to let you know that I got on line and am reading all of the previous posts. That may take me as long as reading the book. It seems that we are having a really good discussion.

    I think that some of the posts may be saved twice as I seem to be reading the same posts more than once.

    Torah is usually capitalized; my typing is almost never error free.

    Will try to get back on line Saturday or Sunday with some observations.

    Ella Gibbons
    March 7, 2003 - 03:37 pm
    Oh, please do that, GEORGE! WE ARE VERY HAPPY TO SEE YOU HAVE RETURNED - and believe me, it is not merely typing errors I've been making - I go for the BIG ONES!! HAHAHA

    Persian
    March 7, 2003 - 06:42 pm
    ELLA - I'm laughing about your "in the closet" comment. I think if God really wanted to speak to you and have you speak to others, He would find you even if you were hiding in a closet!

    Ella Gibbons
    March 8, 2003 - 07:19 am
    MAHLIA - what would you do? Talk back? Hahaha - Now, listen, God, you can't go around scaring people like this - you're a stranger!




    The desert is green? I questioned this as I began to read this morning. But it is green at times - there are seasons in the desert and there is water there as well. Click here for more information about Beersheba: Beersheba"

    Feiler gets rather poetical on this first page as he describes Rami Harubi - "prone to exclamations of natural poesy, literate in the language of sand, and often covered in dust…..(he) dreams of a paradise of perpetual wilderness. He is tall, graying, grand."

    Isn't that a nice description to start our new chapter?

    But do you believe that if you put your head on the ground on the desert you can hear the water coming for about two kilometers, somewhat like hurricane? And that" it can roll stones, move cars, and if you are sleeping too deeply, you can find yourself in the Mediterranean-or not find yourself at all?"

    I don't know about that, the only desert I've been in is our western desert and I never saw any water, but I didn't stay very long and I didn't turn over any pebbles.

    What deserts have all of you been in? There are many different plants there, but the only time I traveled through it was to get somewhere else and didn't have the time to study it – I would have liked to.

    Abraham is the story of water, Rami Harubi says, - Abraham plants a tree and digs a well and gave life to us all! We know that Abraham is a nomad wandering from place to place with his sheep and camels, so he must have been often in the desert; in fact I believe in that clickable above there is a picture of Abraham's well.

    In the heading we have a link to the Fertile Crescent – the land between the two rivers, the Tigris and the Euphrates and on page 61 we read what the central strip of that crescent is comprised of today. Easier to understand the territory if we know that, I think.

    Abraham's locality in summary is that he was born in Mesopatamia (Iraq), and he travels to the Promised Land (Israel) and then as a drought strikes he seeks refuge in Egypt.

    However, the desert is not a settled place as in the cities and God exiled people there knowing it was not - it was a temporary place.

    Feiler says this:

    "The Bible is constantly sending people into the desert for redemption, because it's there, away from the ease of settled life, far removed from ready water, that they turn to God for sustenance"


    What do you all make of that quote? What does it mean?

    ALF
    March 8, 2003 - 08:26 am
    I, too , am following your posts. In Feiler's Walking the Bible he discusses a truth tucked away in early Genesis: Abraham was not originaly the man he became. He was not an Israelite, nor a Jew. He was not even a believer in God-- at least initially. He was a traveler, called by some voice not entirely clear that said; "go, head to this land, walk this route and trust in what you will find." Feiler says, A appeared out of nowhere in the bible. After the flood and the following story, the next 10 generations lead directly from Noah to Abram, "the father is exalted" name later changed to Abraham ("the father of a multitude.")from Ur. Feiler goes on about A's. early life. Is this also mentioned in our book here? Do you want me to go into any of this info i.e. the night Abram was born (according to Jewish legend) a great star passed thru the sky, devouring 4 smaller stars, etc. It says that even as a young boy Abe was able to divine from the stars that there was only one God. The stars came out at night & disappeared during day, this boy reasoned, they couldn't have created the world, as tradition then held. ERGO; there must be an invisible, single God above them. This put Abe at odds with his father (an idol-maker.)

    Drats, I wish my copy would hurry up and get here.

    Harold Arnold
    March 8, 2003 - 08:56 am
    The Fertile Crescent covers more than just the land between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. In words it is the crescent shaped strip of land beginning at the northewestern tip of the Persian Gulf extending northwest along the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers veering more to the west to the Mederrantean coast near its northeast tip. and most IMPORTANTLY from there continuing in a narrow coastal strip south down the coast to Palestine, Jerusalem and Gaza. Click Here for map

    pedln
    March 8, 2003 - 09:09 am
    Things have been a little upside down here. I've been reading all your posts, but am behind in the book. Hope to catch up soon.

    Babi I really appreciated your post #197 about God needing individuals, but not necessarily specific individuals. I think that you have expressed your faith well, in all your posts.

    Ella,, I've known several nuns, but none like your cloistered friend. More the opposite. It's hard for me to understand how such an existence "serves", but will take on faith that it does.

    "The Bible is constantly sending people into the desert for redemption, because it's there, away from the ease of settled life, far removed from ready water, that they turn to God for sustenance"

    Re: Feiler's quote --Kind of like a time-out room. A place to reassess one's purpose in life and in relation to God.

    Harold Arnold
    March 8, 2003 - 11:41 am
    Thank you pedin for mentioning the fact that most nuns today serve in much less cloistered orders than Ellas friend. I think the movement for reduced confinement of monks and nuns has accelerated since the Vatican II Assembly, but it has been in existence since the early years of the Christian era. H.G. Wells in his "Outline of History" writing of the early expansion of Christianity in the 4th through 8th century notes the emergence of many mendicant monks living on the desert in Palestine. He tells of one who boasted his achievement of a new status of holiness by chaining himself to a rock in the desert existing on the alms occasional travelers might leave. Wells notes the comments of one or the Saints (St Benedict I think it was) who commenting on this monk's perceived holiness chided him saying "a true servant of Christ is chained, not to a rock with Iron, but the Christ through righteousness."

    Ann Alden
    March 8, 2003 - 12:05 pm
    Here is an interesting article on The Desert Fathers and their accomplishments,be sure to scroll down: Desert Fathers

    BaBi
    March 8, 2003 - 12:26 pm
    The 'sending people into the desert' reference brings to mind what I have heard called "the wilderness experience". The 'wilderness experience' are those times in our lives when we seem to be abandoned. Life is hard and dry, and God seems to be very far away. All the joy seems to be gone and everything is a struggle. This is likened to the wilderness experience of the Hebrews, to make the point that it does come to an end. And what is left at the end of that experience is a tougher, wiser people(person) with a greater confidence that God is always there, whether we 'feel' His presence or not.

    I was struck by Feiler's observation (p. 60 of my copy), that reads: "The biblical story of Abraham is a triumph of literary ellipsis: the text gives us just enough detail to deliver its myriad of messages, and not one syllable more.

    Isn't it a remarkable thing that a somewhat minimal story yet manages to convey so many messages? One can't help but wonder if any human author could achieve all that by use of a literary 'technique'. Or, maybe we're getting help in seeing the messages as we read the stories? It does give one something to think about, doesn't it? ..Babi

    Ann Alden
    March 8, 2003 - 12:30 pm
    Here is an interesting article on The Desert Fathers and their accomplishments,be sure to scroll down: Desert Fathers

    Ann Alden
    March 8, 2003 - 12:38 pm
    And here is an explanation of the "call of the desert":

    The "call of the desert" is a call to silence and solitude. The "desert" for most of us is not the wilderness of the Sahara, but the call to be quiet and to reflect upon our own salvation: a time to be alone with God. "We all have the desert in our everyday lives. The sand and the sun and heat and lack of water and loneliness may take different forms, but we all experience them: problems, deprivations, physical inconveniences, discomforts and loneliness." (F. Le Clerc) This call is made particularly to those who live in the midst of incessant chatter and noise. If God is to speak, man must be silent. An ancient Egyptian prayer says, "O Thoth, thou sweet well for a man thirsting in the desert. It is sealed up to him who has discovered his mouth, but it is open to the silent. When the silent comes, he finds the well." (2) In the Old Testament, Israel first met Yahweh in the desert, and the story of the desert wandering remained the type of the encounter of man with God.

    BaBi
    March 8, 2003 - 12:53 pm
    Very well put, Ann. It's interesting to note that most of the Old Testament prophets seemed to come out of the desert, and that John the Baptist grew up in the desert. Jesus was drawn out into the desert after his baptism to spend 40 days there alone. Mohamed, of course, was a desert dweller and spent time alone daily.

    'Desert time' seems to be a key to being able to act and speak powerfully for God. I suspect that if we could take a poll, we would find that many of our most eloquent and powerful religious leaders feel the need to take that time to be alone and silent. ...Babi

    Ann Alden
    March 8, 2003 - 01:15 pm
    Yes, Babi, I think you are right there. Retreats are a common custom among many faiths and there are several retreat houses here in Columbus, one of which I have gone to for several church retreats. Frequently, churches put together retreats for men or women or the youth groups. I have been to a few church held properties where we had weekend retreats. It does the soul good to get away from daily life and to contemplate and pray about one's purpose in life. To go inside yourself and calm the inner person.

    Persian
    March 8, 2003 - 03:56 pm
    The last few posts offer some very elegant commentary on what "going into the desert (or oneself)" really means. This is jihad in its pure form.

    Another example (with which we in North American might be more familiar) would be the custom among Native Americans of sending a young man or young woman "into the desert" in search of Spirit, often at the time of taking an adult name (and releasing the childhood name); during times of travail (similar to what the Israelites must have experienced); and for reflection before death. Although their homeland is certainly not desert, the older generations of Inuit (Eskimos) also followed the habit of "separation" from their families at similar times. And every year, during the time of Haj (after Ramadan), hundreds of thousands of Muslims from all over the world travel to Saudi Arabia to "go into the desert" to make their pilgrimage (Haj). So "going into the desert" is not necessarily just a custom among the ancients.

    Lou2
    March 8, 2003 - 04:41 pm
    Though I have not experienced the desert in bloom, my other half has. He couldn't stop talking about how beautiful it was. It was green, a kind of ground cover, "little plants", cactus was covered with flowers and the colors were so brillant you almost had to wear sun glasses. Could only use established roads, not go onto the desert sands. This was the desert of the American West.

    Ella, being able to hear the water coming when there is a flash flood is not limited to Feiler's book. For the life of me I can't recall a title or author, but I've read it many times before. Could it be from the Tony Hillerman books?? I have no idea. (Darn synapse!)

    Lou

    Ella Gibbons
    March 8, 2003 - 05:54 pm
    I hope so, too, ALF! Most of what you said in your post is in our book, yes, but don't go away, please!

    Oh, all of you have made wonderful posts about what "exile into the desert" means to you – actually, the desert reminds me of a place that might be, as a very over-used slang phrase says, between a rock and a hard place.

    Wonderful links – they are all in the heading for us to pursue at our leisure. What history, Harold, in that link you gave us, I read the whole thing (Fertile Crescent II) and in your link, Ann, also about the Desert Fathers – gosh, the living was hard for those men.

    PEDLN calls it a time out to reassess our purpose in life, and BABI believes it is a place in your life when all the joy seems to be gone and everything is a struggle – a hard, dry place. ANN equates the desert with "problems, deprivations, physical inconveniences, discomforts and loneliness" And, thank you, Mahlia, for your commentary and relevant examples of the Native Americans and the Eskimos and the pilgrimage of the Muslims.

    Personally I think we all experience pain and difficulties in our life and perhaps this "desert" is to help us find God? I don't know, I believe all life is a test with no questions, no answers, no grades – a test of how we do on this earth. As an old expression of WWI goes (I believe) you will never find an atheist in a foxhole! We are all searching and yearning for God.

    But, oh, golly, these two chapters ahead of us are full to the brim of history and we must hurry along, whole civilizations and religions come about because of what occurs, so I am going to quote another paragraph and then ask my questions – and I want you to ask your questions, meanwhile I want to say –

    THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH YOUR POSTS, IT'S SO HEARTENING FOR HAROLD AND I TO SEE YOUR INTEREST AND READ YOUR MESSAGES - AND IT'S SUCH A PLEASURE TO BE HERE!.

    "Arriving in Egypt, Abraham fears the pharaoh will kill him for Sarah, who is beautiful to behold, so he asks his wife to say she's his sister. She does, and is promptly seduced by the pharaoh, who rewards Abraham with riches and cattle. God then rewards Sarah for her suffering by afflicting the pharaoh with plagues. The pharaoh responds by banishing the family."


    Do you think Abraham might have known ahead of time this might happen – if the pharaoh is willing to kill for Sarah, he has an evil mind, and the likelihood is he will get Sarah one way or another?

    Abraham is asking his wife to lie and she obliges – both of them are wrong, which one should be punished for theirs deeds?

    Abraham gets riches, Sarah is rewarded – neither is punished. And actually by being banished Abraham becomes a man to be admired, and a war hero.

    Without taking any more than that into consideration, what do you derive from this story? Or do you think we cannot consider this story without going further? If you knew nothing more, what would be the purpose of this story?

    Ella Gibbons
    March 8, 2003 - 05:56 pm
    Hi Lou! We were posting together, tell your husband I wish I had been there at that time of that year, I didn't see what he saw at all.

    Persian
    March 8, 2003 - 07:09 pm
    Although on the one hand, Sara was hiding her spousal relationship to Abraham, she was not lying about being his sister. She was in fact his half-sister. What do we think in terms of keeping full information to ourselves, rather than divulging it? In the case of Sara and Abraham vis-a-vis the Pharoah, her witholding information kept them safe. Is there ever a time to lie when doing so serves a positive purpose?

    Harold Arnold
    March 8, 2003 - 10:35 pm
    Ann, thank you for the link on the Desert Fathers. The Monk in the "chained to the rock" story I got from the H.G. Wells book was probably a part of this group. I recited the story this morning from memory. I have not read the H.G. Wells Outline for many years but I sought it out this morning. It is a three-volume edition I read during WW II while stationed at Ulithi Athol in the South pacific. When we closed the base immediately after the end of the war I rescued these volumes from being "deep sixed." (dumped in the Lagoon). Its pages are now so yellowed as to be almost unreadable. It is not indexed and I was unable to find the Monk story in the time available. After browsing the "Desert Fathers" link and its reference to mendicant monks on the Egyptian desert, I think now the Wells story was located in Egypt, not Palestine as I said in the morning post.

    Persian the Indian custom of young men going to the desert as you described was referred to as the "vision quest." It was a part of the coming of age process for many Indian groups, particularly the plains Indians. The young man would go alone on the plains, the desert, or the mountains and through days of fasting would seek spiritual contact with gods. Often he would during the course of his quest emerge with a new understanding of himself that would establish his character for the remainder of his life.

    To all of our participants I want to commend you on how well all of you have made this discussion so interesting. Ella has already mentioned this, and I want to repeat, how wonderful it is that you have related to one another so well. With out a bit of animosity, you talk to one another and ask each other question. This is what has made this discussion so much fun and I might add it has also made the DL's job both easy and enjoyable..

    Lou2
    March 9, 2003 - 06:20 am
    Just thinking about Abraham and the pharaoh... Mental images, of the desert man, flowing robes of some coarse cloth, sand covered, and somehow not socially adapt... vs the movie images of pharaohs.. resplendent in their silks, head dresses and makeup, slaves and gold... It is so hard for me to imagine the two of them together. Does Feiler's descriptions, as well as the Biblical ones, make you think they might have met as equals? or if not equals, then on some civil level, meaning pharaoh didn't just jail Abraham and take Sari...

    It's hard for me to reconcil in my mind the primitive nomantic culture of the desert with the splendors of Egypt existing at the same time. Am I wrong in assuming that nomantic means primitive?

    Lou

    Ann Alden
    March 9, 2003 - 11:23 am
    This is a quote from Behn Boruch in his essay, "In the Beginning",

    What are nomads? The word means people who move from place to place and never settle down. People who live in the desert are called nomads because they must always move from place to place. That is because they live on the milk and cheese produced by their flocks of goats and the meat and wool of their sheep. There never is enough grass in one place for them to stay very long. When the grass is all eaten up, they must move on.

    In the desert things change very slowly. So if we could have seen the nomads of Abraham's time, we would not have thought they were very different from the nomads of today.

    Ann Alden
    March 9, 2003 - 11:37 am
    And here is another site that says that Abraham was not a nomad and then gives us chapter and verse as proof of the denial. Its so exciting to look at all of these differing opinions. Abraham, A Nomad?-Never!

    Persian
    March 9, 2003 - 12:36 pm
    Here is a link (rather long) which gives detailed information about Abraham from the Islamic standpoint. Some of the material may be startling to Christians who have no background in comparative religion or an interest in basic Islam, yet it is informative about the topic of our discussion and how Abraham is perceived by Muslims.

    http://www.islam101.com/rasool/biblelp/biblelp2.html

    georgehd
    March 9, 2003 - 12:46 pm
    I too have seen references that indicate that Abraham was not a Nomad. I think that we all need to remember that what we read of Abraham in the Bible is our only written source of information about him. The Bible started as an oral tradition being passed down from generation to generation and undoubtedly changing along the way. Even the written text has undergone changes over the last two thousand years. So I do not place too much importance on whether he was or was not a nomad. He did move with his family and flocks and it appears that he was a relatively wealthy man. He also settled down in one spot at various times.

    However, the idea of a wanderer, a searcher seems to me to be very important. Abraham sought inner direction and direction from God. One needs to be alone to do this well; and most of us do not like to be alone for long periods.

    I am bothered by Abraham's giving of Sarah to Pharoh. Various commentaries that I have read point out that it was important for Abraham to be a normal man subject to normal desires. He was a man who could commit a sin and lie about his wife. This makes him seem more believeable.

    kiwi lady
    March 9, 2003 - 02:24 pm
    What would you have done if you had been a German and you were hiding Jews in WW2. Would you have lied to protect them? Some German and other European families had Jewish Children with false papers they passed off as their own to save their lives.

    Carolyn

    BaBi
    March 9, 2003 - 02:27 pm
    I read Ann's link to the article insisting that Abraham was never a nomad. Yet I find about 19-20 references to tents and pitching of tents in various locations, by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Thought they dwelt for extended periods in one locations, whenever grass was plentiful, they were undeniably tent dwellers. And when drought hit..or trouble with neighbors arose...they moved on. That seems to me to fit the description of nomads.

    The comparison with Texas ranches is hardly valid. Texas does have more grass than one usually finds in a desert. The ranch country is more like those areas where Abraham, et al, stayed for extended periods, with sufficient, if not ample, grass and water. There are dry areas of Texas, of course, and if drought hits many farms and ranches go under. They would be better off if they could round up their herds and migrate elsewhere.

    What puzzled me is,..why did the author want to disclaim nomadic origins? ...Babi

    GingerWright
    March 9, 2003 - 02:40 pm
    Ann

    Your link to Abraham, A Nomad?-Never! was much apprieciate by me who read and learned. I Thank You for it.

    GingerWright
    March 9, 2003 - 03:11 pm
    Persian

    I read all of Your link also and understand much more than I had as to what is going on in today's world. Thank You So Much.

    Lou2
    March 9, 2003 - 05:24 pm
    Have read Persia's Islamic Abraham, Ann A's Nomad-Never as well as the part of the essay Ann posted. Are you all telling me Abraham was not a nomad? My mental image of Abraham and pharaoh is wrong?

    Lou

    Persian
    March 9, 2003 - 07:53 pm
    LOU - I don't think in this discussion that there is a "wrong" or "right." One's perception of a historical figure (Abraham) may differ from another's simply because of the background, education, travel, professional experiences, etc. of each person. We know that the word "nomad" indicates a person, family, clan, or tribe which is not stationary. They move from place to place because of custom or survival needs (i.e., the herders who move their animals to better pasture and to find water). In the ancient period about which we are reading, "herds" could be a few dozen or many hundreds of animals; nomads could be a couple dozen families of the same clan or several hundreds from many different clans of the same tribe or affiliated tribes.

    IMO, "primitive," on the other hand indicates a sense of behavior and understanding. Certainly the biblical nomads and Egypt's pharonic families were quite different, yet knowledgeable of each other since Egypt was the land where the nomads took refuge in periods of severe drought; were employed by the Egyptians in various tasks; and developed skills (and advanced those skills) which they would not have been able to do elsewhere. Obviously, working in close proximity, the nomads who spent considerable time in Egypt would learn "Egyptian customs," but whether they adopted them or not was an individual (clan or tribal) issue. Think of Moses in later years: rasied as an Egyptian though "not born of the blood of Kings."

    We have pockets of "primitive" communities in the USA even today. The customs, culture and behavior of those residents of large cities is quite different from residents of small communities. People of different ethnic backgrounds may not behave in the same manner as others around them. People of minority backgrounds may be considered "primitive" by their neighbors. Certainly in a culture such as Egypt, individuals from the area where Abraham was born might be considered primitive and not only because he was a nomad. Although the Chaldeans were of enormous importance in the Fertile Crescent, to the Egyptians they may very well have seemed "primitive."

    As we read Feiler's comments and discuss the outline of his work provided by our Discussion Leaders, I'm confident that we will learn much that has not occurred to us previously and also arrive at some interesting conclusions of our own.

    GingerWright
    March 9, 2003 - 08:23 pm
    Yes all striving for the same place but with different language's and different up bringings that is what the Book Abraham A Journey Thru Three Faiths is all about and I do so love each post. I Thank All You for your posts.

    Ginger

    GingerWright
    March 9, 2003 - 09:09 pm
    Lost Acces no problem.

    Yes all striving for the same place but with different language's and different up bringings that is what the Book Abraham A Journey Thru Three Faiths is all about and I do so love each post. I Thank All You for your posts.

    The Nomad (State Side) as a Child because of My Father's Job and so it was with Abraham and his Children, Ginger

    Edit Going from International Falls Minnesota with all the stops along the way due to Dads job to Key West, Flordia and from DC to the West ah the differance was in All was more than a small child could understand but as an adult Now I see and am learning to understand Why this has happened to me along with this book at this Special Time in our lives.

    Ella Gibbons
    March 9, 2003 - 09:18 pm
    I have had all sorts of problem this evening getting on the Internet, boxes come up wanting information that I don't know and it will not let me cancel the box. Ever had that trouble?

    I must have found the right answer somewhere but it took a lot of time and OH, am I frustrated!

    Having been on the go all day today, I'm rather tired and I apologize. This will be brief -

    MAHLIA - did I read your first post correctly that Sarah was half-sister to Abraham???? I don't believe I knew that from this book or from memory of long-ago bible studies.

    Are you then saying it was just a half-lie (if such a thing be) that Sarah told and that can be excused?

    Interesting! Please correct me if I am wrong?

    Let's move on quickly as we have much to cover!

    This is rather a page-by-page journey through the book, but right now it's the only way to understand the whole story. We certainly don't want a summary of these historic events in Abaraham's life. THEY MATTER VERY MUCH!

    After obtaining wealth and position, Abraham is still not satisfied and begs God for more, he wants children, someone to leave his estate to - an heir! And God answers his pleas:

    "Your offspring shall be enslaved in a land not theirs .....but I will execute judgment on the nation they shall serve; and in the end they shall go free...To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates."


    If I heard this from God I would begin to worry about all the troubles ahead wouldn't you? My children are going to be enslaved - how? Is there a war coming which they will lose? Will they be killed? How long will they be enslaved? Under what conditions?

    But Abraham seems content that God will grant him children (he doesn't have much vision, rather narrow minded), it is Sarah that we need to be concerned about now. The plot thickens and becomes almost unbelievable.

    First - she blames God for being infertile and then she coaxes Abraham into adultery with her maid. Furthermore (no doubt owning the maid?) she is going to claim the child as her own!

    WOW! What a wife! And ABraham just goes along with this? Who is worse, the wife or the husband?

    Now, I want to listen to all of your comments and I'll have more time tomorrow to comment!

    Thanks for all those pertinent remarks and clickable!

    GingerWright
    March 9, 2003 - 10:10 pm
    Ella

    Yep I have the Boxes come up and cannot leave so shut down and come back. Hope someone can help us.

    Hats
    March 10, 2003 - 09:01 am
    I have gotten far behind in the posts. I want to read all of them. Already, I have gained much to think about from Babi's post and Lou's post about the desert. I always think of the desert as dry, unwelcome with snakes, prickly cacti. It was very pleasant learning about the blossoming desert that Lou describes.

    I am having a harder time understanding Pgs. 57 through 110. So, my reading is very slow. I quickly come back to the posts and clickables for help.

    BaBi
    March 10, 2003 - 10:41 am
    Ella, I believe that while Sarah's insisting that Abraham have a child by Hagar was evidence of a definite lack of faith in God's promise, the act was not illegal or adulterous. A slave could be taken as a concubine, and her child be legally considered the child of her mistress. I believe Mahlia mentioned in an earlier post that Hagar could have been a second wife, and is considered so by Muslims. All perfectly legal. Eventually, of course, it caused endless trouble, but that's later. ...Babi

    Ann Alden
    March 10, 2003 - 02:02 pm
    In ref to your half-lie question, Ella, IMHO, I don't think that she lied. She truthfully claimed to be Abraham's sister but "withheld" the other side of the coin from the pharoah. He probably didn't ask her either since finding out that she was Abraham's sister, the pharoah was most happy. That meant he could have her as a wife. He even thanked Abraham! Hmmmmm! I hate to say this, but with this part of the story along with Abraham's willingness to give up Isaac, I'm a little confused as to what it is that I am supposed to admire in this man.

    Persian, I have printed your very informative link and will now retire to read it.

    Since I was only able to get the large print copy of this title, what page are we reading to in it or what section, Ella?

    Persian
    March 10, 2003 - 04:29 pm
    OK - DRUMBEAT HERE - let's do a bit of quick comparative thinking. Although today, we would consider Abraham's intimate relationship with Hagar as adulterous, it was not considered so in his own time. Not only was this intimacy OK with Sara, it was her idea!

    Sara was without children for a long, long time. This was much more of a curse and a heartbreaking disappointment(and to some extent remains so today among Middle Eastern women)than we in the West would consider it to be. For the woman, as well as for the man.

    That said, it is also helpful to understand as BABI pointed out that it was OK - really OK, according to the customs of the time - for Sara to suggest to Abraham (and even push him if need be) to have an intimate relationship with Hagar so that there would almost assuredly be a child born of the union (hopefully, of course, a son). That child would then belong to Sara, since she was Hagar's mistress. (Sara could, of course, decide to allow Hagar to keep her own child, but this was not likely since Sara was childless.)

    When you think about it, this yearning for a child and turning to "other" methods of conception is not too far removed from the protracted procedures of artificial insemination or surrogate motherhood today.

    Sorry, but the "legality" of Abraham's fathering a child with Hagar was never in question. He had the perfect right to do so. By custom and by his leadership position and with the full concurrence of Sara. Within Islam, Hagar was considered to be a second wife, which is acceptable, since Muslims are allowed to have 4 wives if all can be treated equally. To Christians, Hagar was not a legal "wife," but a concubine, under the jurisdiction of Sara. However, note she is referred to as "a handmaiden to Sara," NOT a concubine. Sara's her boss, not Abraham. And woe to the person who didn't understand that chain of command! Even God tells Abraham to "listen to Sarah" and do as she bids.

    Lou2
    March 10, 2003 - 05:17 pm
    I said to my DH... How do you feel about this??? When did this all change??? Is it the Purtian influence??? It seems so.... what?? The least I can say is "not acceptable today".. At least for my DH and I... "oldies". First of all I wouldn't know what in the world to do with a "handmaiden"??? and then she'd better not darken DH's bedroom, 'cause she'd find me!! LOL... but really, this is so foreign to me... When I re-read the Genesis chapters today, that even seemed foreign... ????

    Lou

    DH=Darling husband (just in case....)

    Ella Gibbons
    March 10, 2003 - 07:15 pm
    WELL, WELL, WELL! What interesting posts! We must all take comfort in the fact that there is an end to the story! hahahaha So many ideas, you are all just great!

    HATS – we all understand your confusion! And I'm not sure you are getting help here – it's not Harold and I's intention to attempt to be authoritative in any sense of the word – WE ARE FAR from being comprehensive readers ourselves of literature in religions of the world or understanding this any better than any of you.

    But we all are interested and trying and that is wonderful! MAHLIA, perhaps, understands more of this story than any of us – however Mahlia, even Feiler, who is in the Middle East and is talking to all these authority figures says the following:

    "Though legally Sarah's action is consistent with the ancient practice of surrogate motherhood, morally her act is troubling. The language suggest this. Sarah does not mention the maid's name, nor does she acknowledge that the resulting child might belong to the other woman. …….

    Moreover, Sarah takes her maid and gives her to Abraham in an echo of the way Eve takes the fruit and gives it to Adam."


    All of that troubles me – how about the rest of you? He is suggesting that Sarah is, and the implication is, if she is not evil, then perhaps sinful? She is tempting Abraham and in the language of Feiler he is "passive …a wimp."

    Furthermore, read at the bottom of page 64 the statements of the professor of Theology, a leading interpreter of women in the Bible. She is saying that the women in this story are ignorant, have flaws and petty jealousies and you can understand why. It is against nature for a child to have two mothers; both want the child.

    Yes, BABI, this act of Sarah's does imply a lack of faith in God who promised Abraham offspring. How different history may have been if Sarah had not intervened with her own "creationist" solution..

    MAHLIA, I understand that it is perfectly legal to have several wives in the Middle East and, particularly in the ancient days of which we are talking – in my simple reasoning I have always believed (one rationalizes) that God permitted this because the world needed to be populated. He created it, He wanted it populated.

    But my question is if it was legal why didn't Abraham – the guy that had the nerve to argue with God – just seduce the maid. He wanted a child very badly. Why wait for Sarah to tell him what to do? Is it common in the Middle East, then and now, for wives to be bossy, perhaps? You indicated such!

    But, as Feiler states, SARAH'S GESTURE SETS UP A TENSION THAT WILL OCCUPY HISTORY FOREVER! With that in mind, it behooves us to spend a little time in discussion before moving on.

    I know we are splitting hairs here over too many small issues and not getting to the big ones, but this is such an interesting story and it is true

    ANN, this is not very far into the chapter of Ishmael, where Feiler is still talking to Rami and asking him about the meaning of the desert.

    Hahaha, LOU – DH (dear husband in my house) would you take the place of a handmaiden and wash the dinner dishes tonight? He's no wimp! He doesn't mind saying NO at all.

    Tomorrow, we will take up Hagar's difficulties with this troubled relationship. For the moment we are excluding the consequences of all these actions and how they relate to our situation today.

    MAHLIA – please don't get impatient with us, we'll start connecting all this to the history of all the religions shortly. But we can take our time here – isn't it grand that we can? And, I'm sure a course in this one particular period of history in a university would take weeks!

    Later, ella

    Persian
    March 10, 2003 - 08:43 pm
    Bossy? Bossy? Why, what on earth would make you think that Middle Eastern women were/are bossy? The very idea! Of course, they're bossy!!!! This is one of the least understood aspects of women's life in the Middle East. People in the Western world seem to fixate on the veil of the Muslimas, but fail to realize that the Christian Middle Eastern women don't wear veils. Neither do the Jewish Middle Eastern women.

    Middle Eastern women have a tremendous amount of power within the family. The keys words here are "within the family." The customs and culture of the area are not such that women exhibit their innermost feelings in a public way. For the most part (although there are some exceptions)they do not offer radical (to them) ideas to the public via media coverage. They do not demonstrate publicly in large or small groups. And they are extremely circumspect about what they say or do in public.

    However, once the door to the family's home is closed behind them and the women are safely ensconced in their personal environment with spouse or sibblings or children nearby, their voices are heard and clearly. Make no mistake: these women may appear as doves in public, but in a family crisis (particularly), they are hawks!

    Middle Eastern women are subtle and they take great pride in the development of their own mystique and subtleties. They are not given to yes/no answers and to a Westerner this in itself can drive you nuts! They are charming/cunning, shy/sly, silent/outrageously communicative, especially if there is a major issue of dissent inside the family. Mothers, aunts, elder sisters and cousins band together and their power within the family is strong. Islam teaches that life is in the hand of the woman and Middle Eastern men believe this from birth to their graves.

    N.B. Do not confuse the atrocious behavior of the Afghan men (particularly the Taliban whose core is centered around the Pastuns) towards their women as being the same as that in the Middle East. Afghans are NOT Arabs, nor are they considered residents of the Middle East. They are Central Asians, non-Arabs, even though they are primarily Muslims. Nor should there be confusion about the lack of women's driving privileges in Saudi Arabia or the lack of women's right to vote in Kuwait. These are issues that are being worked on quietly and not for public consumption. Just as the voices of women are not HEARD publicly, but they certainly are heard and adhered to inside one's family.

    Please also understand that although Islam allows men to have 4 wives, many do not. They simply cannot afford to do so or they really love their one wife (as in the case of DH/DW). The custom of multiple wives was brought about by the tenacious wars in which so many men died. Women were left alone (often with numerous children) and would have perished if they had not been able to find a "protector" (husband). Thus, the original custom of multiple wives was for protection of the lone women. Some of the Islamic countries can overdo this aspect of Muslim life (i.e., Saudi Arabia, where it is much more common for multiple wives). And, unfortunately, in many cases DW doesn't even know there is DW #2, 3 or 4.

    Now back to Abraham, whom I don't agree with Feiler was a wimp. I think he was just doing God's bidding and had enormous trust in the Lord's guidance. Which is not to say that Sara was not a nag or pushy or bossy. Afterall, if Sara really got out of hand, couldn't God have turned her into a pillar of salt like Lot's wife? This isn't the Junior League we're reading about; it's BIG TIME.

    Harold Arnold
    March 10, 2003 - 08:48 pm
    Hats and all, for a wonderful book about the beauty of the desert you must read "Desert Solitaire" by the late/great nature writer Edward Abbey. Click Here. Abbey in this book tells of his love affair with the Great Americian Desert where he lived for severaly years near Moab, Utah. Abbey would prohibit all modern develowment, presumably even himself, to protuct the delicate desert environment from destruction. I read the book some 30 years ago,

    Hats
    March 11, 2003 - 05:53 am
    Thank you, Harold. I have written the title down. I am very interested in the desert after our posts here. Having a title and author makes research that much easier.

    Hats
    March 11, 2003 - 06:15 am
    Thank you for all the information on the Middle East, Mahlia. I always associate most Middle Eastern women with the veil and total submission to their men. I must have gotten one culture mixed with another. Without taking a time out to do personal research, I think it is impossible to just look at the news, picking up one bit of information here, there and everywhere, and keep it all straight.

    Ann Alden
    March 11, 2003 - 07:24 am
    Ella, you mentioned that Sarah had a lack of faith/trust in God being supplied with progeny so she took matters into her own hands. Now, isn't that just like a woman---in any country? Also, one has to admire Abraham's trust in God's promise of a child. This whole story, to me, is about Abraham's trust in the promises of his God.

    Mahlia, I did print the link that you put up and its an eye opener. I guess I was aware of Ishmael and Isaac and their place in this history of the three faiths but not aware of how all this was resolved inside the different faiths. Thanks for all your explanations and links, they are so helpful and interesting.

    Hats
    March 11, 2003 - 07:33 am
    Hi Ann,

    I see Abraham in the same way. I have been taught that Abraham's story is one of great faith or faltering faith.

    Harold Arnold
    March 11, 2003 - 09:30 am
    We have quite an ancient drama going here, do we not? What with Abraham and Sarah and Hagar there is the makings of love triangle. Initially at any rate there is no real tension between the three principals involved though jelousey is a factor later; Most of the tension comes later with the inter-actions of the grown children. Also the staring role give God-All-Mighty would be unusual in a modern soap opera.

    BaBi
    March 11, 2003 - 12:17 pm
    Ella, I had to smile when you wrote that the women in the story (Sarah and Hagar) exhibited flaws and petty jealousy. I got to wondering just how many women of my acquaintance I could count who had no flaws ('0'), and who never exhibited petty jealousy (few).

    I admit I have always considered some aspects of Abraham's behavior to be far from admirable, while in others I find him awesome. Quite a mixture, this man. ...Babi

    Ella Gibbons
    March 11, 2003 - 01:09 pm
    A few notes from a Library book (paraphrased): (I'll put these in from time to time, so MAHLIA can correct any flaws in these statements) They are put here just to help us understand Muslims and Islam:

    1) Islam, followed by more than a billion people worldwide, is the world's fastest-growing religion and will soon be the world's largest;


    2) A believer in Islam worships God directly without the intercession of priests or clergy or saints.


    3) On Fridays, in addition to daily prayers five times a day, all male believers are required to gather together for the noon prayer and listen to a sermon called a "khutba" in Arabic. In many places today, women also attend Friday worship although they are segregated from the men. – ISLAM by Jonathan Bloom and Sheila Blair






    MAHLILA – OH, you are precious! BOSSY WOMEN! But, is it not true that husbands can divorce wives in the presence of others (men, probably). I have read, but am not sure about the truth of anything that I have read –but if such be true, wouldn't that make the wives a little reticent to speak up and criticize a husband or tell him what to do? Just a thought.

    Multiple wives remind me of the Mormons which used to practice the same thing; perhaps some do, but many do not I believe.

    A few questions for all of you - what do you think of Sarah's actions toward Hagar? Abraham's reaction to Hagar via Sarah?

    How would you feel about all of this if you were in Hagar's place?

    Would you feel comforted by God's message? Would you ask God for more?

    Perhaps this is irrelevant, but is there any way all of this could have been avoided at the very beginning of this story?

    georgehd
    March 11, 2003 - 01:09 pm
    The story that Abraham tells Sarah to say that she is his sister has raised lots of historical and moral issues. I am going to paraphrase from comments on the Torah published by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (Reform). "There is evidence that Sarah was Abraham's sister because in the second version of this story we learn that the two had different mothers but shared the same father (Gen. 20:12) It is possible that descent was traced through the mother (a Jewish tradition) and marriages between offspring of the same father were permissible. Another explanation is based on the assumption that Abraham lived about 1500 BCE when the word sister could have had an additional special meaning (like a nun today). Abraham and Sarah came froma Hurrian background and it would be natural for them to use Hurrian terminology. Documents show a Hurrian could adopt his wife as his sister thereby giving her special status for then she could be treated as a blood relative of her husband's family. This kind of adoption took place in the upper strata of society where inheritance and family bonds were very important. It is known that the Egyptians at this time were familiar with Hurrian customs.

    In later periods, little was mentioned of the Hurrians and their culture was largely forgotten. Then commentators on this story would transform the tale into one of deceit and devine intervention . "

    It is interesting to note that Sarah is called a beautiful woman and there is certainly the implication that Pharaoh had more than a passing interest in her. However, it must be pointed out that she was 65 years old at the time. Just an interesting side light.

    We should also read Gen 20:1-18 for another account of Sarah as wife and sister. And in Gen 26:1-11 we find that Isaac calls Rebeccah his sister and Rebeccah is also very beautiful.

    While I seem to be going astray from our book, I am finding various references extremely interesting. The source that I am turning to again and again is the Torah and commentary published by UAHC in 1981. This book contains much commentary as well as contemporary references to the parts under discussion.

    Ella Gibbons
    March 11, 2003 - 01:23 pm
    GEORGE! We were posting together - do keep up your comments on both the Torah and any other references - FASCINATING STUFF. Now I want to learn more about the Hurrian culture - when did they exist? Golly, I can certainly understand the adoption of your wife as a sister (as strange as that sounds) could be the means of protecting your wealth and, particularly, if you had no heirs. What a difference that would have made to this story as Abraham would have had an heir (even an old heir is better than no heir, OH!) and would not have needed a son - or????

    I better stop right there!

    ALF
    March 11, 2003 - 01:49 pm
    I received my book today and wil start at this weeks reading.

    georgehd
    March 11, 2003 - 02:34 pm
    After the downfall of Sumeria in Ur, the Hurrians came down from the north. They were non Semetic peoples from the Caucasian mountains and settled between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. They did not come as an army but rather in small groups who infiltrated the population. In 1919 thousands of clay tablets dating from between 1500 and 1370BCE, were discovered in the Hurrian city of Nuzi east of the Tigris river.

    this information comes from another fantastic source book: Understanding the Old Testament by Bernard W. Anderson 1998

    Hats
    March 11, 2003 - 02:46 pm
    Ella, thanks for going to the library and gathering all those facts.

    I have always been taught that it was Sarah's impatience and Abraham's lack of faith that led to the whole situation. God had told Abraham and Sarah that they would conceive a son. Obviously, to both of them God took too long. Therefore, Sarah asked Hagar to become a substitute wife and later, a surrogate mother. Abraham went along with it. Their plans were not God's plans. This led to jealousy and all sorts of problematic issues.

    Anyway, if I were in Hagar's place, I would probably feel used and abused. If I were in Sarah's place, I would be angry with Abraham for not being a MAN and stopping me before I went through with my plan. I think both women should have gotten angry with Abraham and chased him out of their tents.

    This does not mean Abraham is not a GREAT MAN OF FAITH. No man is perfect, not even a Bible Hero. The GREAT MEN AND WOMEN OF FAITH all made mistakes. Yet, they did not stop loving God and neither did God stop loving them.

    ALF
    March 11, 2003 - 08:27 pm
    You see, centuries ago, two women could not share and get along without conflict. I'd say Sarah and Hagar each had their own justifications. Sarah wanted a son and nothing would stand in her way.

    Bruce Feiler talks about the "most famous passages in the Bible and the one he read during his Bar Mitzvah." I will make of you a great nation," God says "and I will bless you. I will make your name great." This started it all, leaving behind the faith of old, the old pattern of life- for a new start because God says to do it, A does. God's voice was so loud, Abraham obeyed, had no doubts, only faith and away he went from his native land.

    On page 61 we are told of the small strip of land that everyone coveted then, though no one could control it. The Fertile Crescent. The Egyptians called it " Kharu", the Greeks and the Romans called it "Palestina" and the Syrians called it "Canaan." t The promised land, a place that for 3000 years has been difficult to control became the Promised Land because NO one had ever been able to control it.

    this is the basis for all of this warring over there isn't it? It's territorial.

    GingerWright
    March 11, 2003 - 08:45 pm
    Alf

    Yes I think so. I am So Glad you have your book in hand mine is back to the library and cannot get it back yet as it is so much in demand.

    georgehd
    March 12, 2003 - 05:27 am
    As we discuss Abraham, I am very concious of the impending war in the Middle East and how the roots of this conflict date from Abraham. It is interesting and sad to note that Saddam Husein, Osama ben Ladden and George Bush all pray to the same God. They all use the name of God to justify their actions. I may have more to say about this after we finish the book.

    However, for those interested in differing opinions on this war, you can go to nytimes.com for today's edition of the New York Times (my home page). Half way down in the center of the home page are Editorials and OpEd pieces. John MaCain and Thomas Friedman have written very interesting comments. Friedman has been writing a very balanced view of the situation in the Middle East for some time. http://www.nytimes.com/

    ALF
    March 12, 2003 - 06:32 am
    I read those early this AM too Georgehd. It is very difficult for me to maintain a peaceful demeanor as my grandson sits 12 Kilometers from the border of Iraq, as we speak. I just keep thinking good grief for 3000 years there has been warring with one faction or another in that region. Looks as if Abraham passed the message along and built a "nation of people who surrendered to God." Feiler tells us in this book that Abraham's idea is the same as that of the Constitution, ---one nation under God.

    BaBi
    March 12, 2003 - 10:46 am
    HATS, I was interested in your impression of how Hagar would feel. I had thought about that question, too. Consider that Hagar, as Sarah's handmaid, had no prospects for a life of her own, and had apparently not been allowed to marry and have children prior to this time. I think if I were Hagar, Sarah's proposal would seem to me a wonderful opportunity to improve my lot and my status. More important, I would have an opportunity to have a child. That consideration alone would make the prospect a hopeful one to me.

    This line of Feiler's caught my attention: (pg. 63)"Even before he fathers a great nation, Abraham fathers a great tradition, an interactive relationship with God, a struggle."

    I had to stop and think about that awhile. All three of the Abrahamic religions are an interactive relationship with God. I wonder if that could be said about any of the other religions. I can't imagine, for example, Buddhism as an interactive relationship with Buddha. How about Hinduism? Is this sort of relationship found only in the Jewish/Christian/Muslim concept of God? ...Babi

    Harold Arnold
    March 12, 2003 - 11:54 am
    BaBi you make some good points concerning the interactive/personal relation with God in the three Abrahamic faiths and ask good questions about the existence of a similar personal relationship with God in the non-Abrahamic faiths. I wish I had good answers and did look for my notes and text on the Comparative Religious Thought course I took at Trinity in 1950. I remember I had this material 12 years ago when I closed my San Antonio Apartment. I thought I moved them here, but I can't find them now.

    I think you are right in the point that in both Hinduism and Buddhism an individual's relationship with God, while existent, is quite different that in the Abrahamic faiths. In my view in particular in Buddhism I think interaction would be much less personal and much more psychological. In the Abrahamic religions the relation with God as is a personal one through faith; it is an emotional experience. The Buddhist interaction in contrast being psychological is through reason and the mind. I did find this link that compares the positions of Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam on certain key points that I read as partially support this interpretation; Click Here.

    Just as Judaism was the roots of Christianity, so Hinduism was the roots of Buddhism. Therefore I think the individual Hindu's relationship with God would be similar to that of the Buddhist. I remember the Hindu religion stresses the existence of many Gods so the individual Hindu would have occasion to relate to many different and perhaps personal favorite deities. Click Here for a site comparing Hinduism and Christianity.

    Hats
    March 12, 2003 - 01:44 pm
    Babi, I agree. The prospect would seem like a perfect one for Hagar. However, after the birth of the baby, Ishmael, it did not seem like a happy situation for either woman. Sarah felt very threatened by Hagar and her son's presence. Only the intervention of God saved the situation.

    I am reading Feiler's book and striving to understand too.

    "The story of Abraham as it appears in Genesis is a near-perfect personification of that battle. It is a story about the struggle for control of the Promised Land, a fertility battle in the cradle of fertility."

    GingerWright
    March 12, 2003 - 03:05 pm
    Harold

    Thank you for those links as I have saved both of them for more study.

    Hats
    March 12, 2003 - 03:17 pm
    Harold, along with Ginger, I would like to thank you for the clickables.

    Ella Gibbons
    March 12, 2003 - 05:20 pm
    George, we get Friedman in our paper and I, too, like him. I would have voted for McCain if he had only made it – he was candid with the public and I trusted him, he knows the horrors of war!

    ALF – we are happy you have the book!

    BABI – your quote "Abraham fathers a great tradition, an interactive relationship with God, a struggle." – needs to be remembered, particularly, I think the word – STRUGGLE! We all struggle with this relationship – every religious person does – every religious country does!

    In a sense, Sarah shared her husband, but for her own purposes and then how mean-spirited she was to Hagar (after all, her maid had to obey) to exile her in the desert. What do you suppose she actually said to her? "NOW GET OUT, YOU'VE DONE YOUR CHORE FOR TODAY, AND I DON'T NEED YOU ANYMORE. I DON'T WANT YOU AROUND TELLING EVERYONE WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE?"

    It is amazing that the whole story of this relationship - what today we would call adultery on Abraham's part (what would we call Sarah or Hagar's part in this drama?) has been handed down to us from the telling of so many generations ago?

    What astonished me are Sarah's words to Abraham after the deed has been done! She lashes out at him:

    "The wrong done me is your fault! I myself put my maid in your bosom; now that she sees that she is pregnant, I am lowered in her esteem?"


    Does that make any sense to any of you?

    And, apparently, Hagar flees (by accident or design?) to the same place the Israelites go immediately after crossing the Red Sea.

    Hagar is "afflicted." But this is an encouraging message that Feiler repeats over and over again - "All God's children are afflicted in some way. And when they are, God looks after them."

    What do you suppose counts as afflictions? Anything like arthritis? Hahaha

    And Hagar is given a blessing by God that no other woman, or any man, for that matter is given. The messenger of God calls Hagar by NAME! First, he tells her the bad news - she must go back to Sarah and submit to her harsh treatments (which I think could be both good and bad - Sarah will be cruel but Hagar will see her son grown to manhood.)

    She will bear innumerable children - GOOD NEWS! But he will live in the desert - bad news and then there is the suggestion that all will not be well with her firstborn.

    Who does Hagar marry? Does anyone know from any sources? Does she get out from under Sarah's cruelty?

    Tomorrow we will talk about the firstborn son! Forget the girls here, they aren't the least important.







    From "ISLAM AND MUSLIMS" by George W. Braswell, Jr.: Diversity among Muslims includes the following:

    Four major schools of Islamic law


    Sectarian groups like Sunni, Shite, Sufi Wahhabi, Ahmadiyya, Nation of Islam, Muslim Brotherhood


    High profile leaders of Islamic nations


    Leaders of militant Islamic groups


    Folk Islam


    A favorite expression among Muslims is Enshallah ("if Allah wills"). Much of Islam is predicated upon predestination, even though Muslims believe they must do all within their power to please God in order to obtain rewards in heaven. The Quran marks out the straight path and of all world religions Islam has the clearest and most concise description of how to please God.

    The Quran reqires Muslims to follow five basic practices, sometimes called the five pillars of Islam. These include the great confession, prayers, almsgiving, the fast of Ramadan, and the pilgrimage to Mecca. Another practice is jihad, the sturggle to extend Islam to the non-Muslim world.




    The more of these I type the less difference I see among the religion of Islam to any of the others. How about you?

    kiwi lady
    March 12, 2003 - 06:21 pm
    Many Christians also say "God Willing" if they are talking about plans for the future. Even in saying "See you in the morning" they might add God Willing. Very similar to the Islamic Phrase Inshallah.

    Carolyn

    kiwi lady
    March 12, 2003 - 06:25 pm
    The eldest son - it was not that many years ago that according to British Law the eldest son got everything and was favored in family businesses etc. Even here until about 30 years ago it was the eldest son who was expected to take over the family farm. I have been reading my family tree and I did have one ancestor who left all his money to his wife but the family property in trust to his son. This was in the 1700's. He obviously mistrusted his sons. All the early wills are in the booklet written about my maternal ancestors beginning 1647. Very interesting reading.

    Carolyn

    ALF
    March 12, 2003 - 07:56 pm
    So many interesting points are presented in this book. I had to giggle @ Feiler's thoughts on Abraham not being a towering figure in the history of art and entertainment. "there's no Michaelangelo staue that everyone can envision as there is of David; no outstretched fingers on the ceiling of the Ciustine chapel at there are for Adam. Joseph earned both a Thomas Mann trilogy and an Andrew Llyod Webber musical --" that's so true and it shows he's got a sense of humour, our author.

    I don't ever remember reading about this negotiation process that transpired between Abe and God; this barteing for lives in Genesis. I'm going to get my Bible out tonight and reread that. Wow, what a concept. God was the creator and now Abraham can create!

    Harold Arnold
    March 12, 2003 - 08:38 pm
    And Alf, I am going to add there was no 1930's Cecil B. de Mill movie entitle Abraham" (as there was for Moses), and Elizabeth Taylor never had the opportunity to play Sarah. Or would she have been cast in the role of Hagar? Yes, I think that would have been the part for her. Liz was, I think, at her best when she played another, later Egyptain.

    ALF
    March 12, 2003 - 08:44 pm
    We'll cast Liz over there in the Julius Caesar discussion.

    Ann Alden
    March 13, 2003 - 07:25 am
    Have we arrived at the birth of Isaac yet? Where are we? I have read all of the links until my eyes twisted up and said no more!Buuuuut, they were all very interesting and gave me pause about what is believed by different people.

    I am willing to believe that Sarah and Abraham were siblings and that it didn't matter in those times. I am also willing to believe Hager was cast out into the desert with Ishmael but timing of all this seems to be in question. How old was Ishmael at that time? How old was Isaac when Abraham was told to slay his favored son? And who was it? Ishmael or Isaac? And, what difference does this make in the continuation of the story/myth/tradition?

    Ella, I believe that your description of "jihad" is not the same as Persian's earlier post. I think what she said is that "jihad" is searching for a spirituality in your life and trying to find a divine presence within yourself. So, if I have quoted her correctly, a 'holy jihad' is not a 'holy war' but a 'holy search' for God within us. Is that right, Persian?

    Persian
    March 13, 2003 - 11:19 am
    Jihad - in the traditional sense (before Taliban, al-Qaeda, PLO, etc.) meant one's personal struggle; a struggle to overcome a weakness (i.e. lack of faith); to become more disciplined in one's own life or an undertaking (learning, studying, developing various aspects of one's personality or abilities). In this context, it would not make sense to refer to a "holy jihad."

    However, the word has morphed into the meaning that we read/hear about in the press when used by the radical elements. Currently, "a holy jihad" has more or less the same meaning as what the Crusaders once called "a holy war," and those who use it in such context say that they believe - and want everyone else of their persuasion to believe in the same way. But humans don't work that way. Even without the type of "democracy" that we know in the West as a natural way of life, individuals in more traditional, restrictive societies disagree about various aspects of life.

    For examples, the Saudis are known as the most orthodox and placid (non-confrontational by nature) among the Arab Muslims. Central Asians (Afghans, who are NOT Arabs)have a reputation as conservative in their daily behavior, but as vicious fighters when aroused or feel they've been slighted. N.B. Right now there is a HUGE uproar going on in Kabul regarding the way that Pres. Karzaio was treated by the Senature Foreign Relations Committee when he was in Washington DC recently. It all stems from the fact that he was invited to meet with the Committee (which usually meets with distinguished leaders privately) in an open conference room with the media present, but MORE IMPORTANTLY TO THE DIGNITY OF Pres. Karzai and the Afghans, was that his chair WAS PLACED BELOW THE LEVEL OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS. And on top of that insult, he was scolded by two members of the Committee - one feemale, who complained that women and young girls in the Herat area of Afghanistan were still be forced to undergo medical examinations to make sure that they were virgins or had not had recent intimate experiences. Although the Committee assured the Pres's delegation that the Afghan Ambassador in Washington had approved of the meeting, knew of the seating arrangements and of the topics that the Pres. would be expected to discuss, Karzai was not appeased. He has fired the Ambassador and let the White House know that he was poorly treated. A call from Pres. Bush to Pres. Karzai was promptly made to apologize. So if you ever invite an Afghan Pres. into your home or office, don't make him sit below your eye level.

    Back to Abraham - earlier someone speculated what Sara would have told Hagar about leaving and going into the desert. IMO, I don't think Sara said anything to Hagar; she made Abraham do the deed. And he did it with seemingly no qualms, since God had told him to listen to Sara and do what she told him to do.

    Eldest sons: yes, in the Middle East, the eldest son carries great responsibility in a family. My husband, Mohamed, is the eldest son in a large family and he is exhausted most of the time by all the things he has to keep track of. Since his father is elderly, more and more responsibilities have come to him. Financially, he is responsible for his younger brother (in his 40's and a lazy businessman) and two unmarried sisters, who show absolutely no inclination of wanting to marry and establish their own households. But he is ALSO responsible for the well being of his two elder sisters, who are married, have children and grandchildren! Hopefully, one of these days, Mohamed's burdens will be lessened, In'shallah!

    kiwi lady
    March 13, 2003 - 12:00 pm
    Mahlia - The responsibilty is as much cultural as religious. I know a secular Turk. The Turkish culture where the state is secular at the moment is one where the eldest son also has big responsiblity. I must admit I do like the respect shown to elders in this culture and the way family is so very important.The West has lost this respect for family in the main I think.

    Carolyn

    BaBi
    March 13, 2003 - 03:59 pm
    Harold, I also thank you for the links comparing religions. I think the remarks on Buddhism summed it up in a tidy nutshell when it stated, "Buddhism is a philosophy of life". Like Confucianism, it has always appeared to me to be more accurately a philosophy than a religion, in that there is no God to be worshiped.

    On Sarah and Hagar, my reading on that is that once Hagar produced a child, she began to act proudly toward Sarah, ie., to boast of having given Abraham a child, and to consider herself as #1 female of the household. I think it was this that Sarah blamed on Abraham,that he did not rebuke or chastise Hagar for treating her disrespectfully. You note that Abraham's reply was, "She's your servant. Do what you please with her." Hagar's position here seems somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand she if apparently the second wife, and entitled to certain rights. On the other, she is apparently still Sarah's handmaid, with no rights at all. I think we need Mahlia on this one.

    Another point I would like to see clarified a bit. So often in scriptures, when people "hear" from God, it is an "angel of the Lord" who is actually speaking. An 'angel of the Lord' apparently speaks with all the authority of God himself, and any message from one is heeded as though God himself spoke. Yet seeing one would surely not be the same thing as 'seeing' God. This has caused confusion for me in a number of instances in the scriptures, but I won't digress into those. (Your're welcome.) I'd appreciate some input on the role of an 'angel of the Lord' in all three faiths. ...Babi

    Persian
    March 13, 2003 - 07:05 pm
    Indeed, Hagar had a profound sense of pride in giving birth to a son, especially when Sara was NOT able to do so (at the point when Ishmael was born). Even though it was Sara's idea for Abraham to be intimate with Hagar in order to have a child (hopefully, a son, of course), when the birth took place, there was also a sense of outrage within Sara that it was Hagar who had born a son and not herself. Within the customs of the time (as is often the case in rural villages today), the elevation of Hagar in the eyes of some was in direct connection to her son - NOT to herself as the Mother or as having been intimate with Abraham. And if, as I imagine, Hagar really "played this up" in Sara's face, it certainly is understandable that Sara would not put up with Hagar's behavior graciously.

    Remember - Sara did not suggest that Abraham take Hagar as a wife; only that he "visit her" so that there would be a child born of the intimacy. (Within Islam, of course, it is believed that Hagar WAS a second wife to Abraham. So you have a choice of which to believe. And also within Islam, if the senior - first - wife is stern and carries a lot of influence with the husband, the second wife's life can be absolutely miserable. Regardless of her giving birth to a son, Hagar REMAINED Sara's servant. That relationship was never changed, nor had Sara any intention of doing so. Just because Hagar had Abraham's child did not in any way lessen her responsibility to Sara.

    So we can either view Abraham as a wimp in sending away Hagar and Ishmael at Sara's bidding with seemingly little thought for their survival OR we can admire him for his steadfast belief that God would provide for them and make Ishmael the father of many nations.

    Persian
    March 13, 2003 - 07:10 pm
    "An Angel of God" - in Islam, this usually means Jibril (Gabriel), who gives voice to God's word, except in the example of the birth of Islam in the 7th century, when (Muslims believe) God spoke directly to an illiterate trader (the Prophet Mohamed). God's words were "burned into Prophet Mohamed's memory" and after he recovered from his initial shock and fear, he dictated God's words to scribes who preserved them. And those words became the Holy Qur'an.

    GingerWright
    March 13, 2003 - 07:24 pm
    I belive that God speaks to all the people on earth some way, some how.

    I have a Very personal relationship with God thru Jesus Christ as that is the way we Christians believe but I do believe that he speaks to All and so apprieciate hearing How God speaks to All these Three religions. I enjoy learning about How he has and is doing so.

    I Thank All of you posting and especial Harold and Ella who have agreed to be Discussion Leaders of this Book.

    Ginger

    Ann Alden
    March 14, 2003 - 06:58 am
    Ginger, I agree with you about God speaking to everyone on the earth. I also believe that we are born with a "need" to believe in a higher power/spirit. We need to have a hero, as Joseph Campbell says.

    Persian, thanks for all the explaining about "jihad". I had it partly right but you put it so much better.

    There are many versions of Abraham's putting Hagar and Ishmael out in the desert and that he put them right in the place where God gave Moses the 2 tablets of the ten commandments. Also,IMHO, the fact/story/tale that Abraham and Ishmael kept up a relationship throughout their lives makes this whole story more believeable.

    Harold Arnold
    March 14, 2003 - 10:20 am
    I too thank Persian for her input about many Islamic principals inclucing the concept of "Jihad." Most of us do not understand Islam and it is important that we have her as a source for the information we really need. Thank you Persian for making up this deficiency.

    ALF
    March 14, 2003 - 12:15 pm
    Mahlia:  Intersting that you should post regarding President Karzaio's mistreatment.  I recently sent the Newsweek article to my grandson, who is deployed very close to the Iraqi border.  This article was a list of basic "do's and dont's on how to be polite in the country your're invading (an oxymoron to me--but none-the -less).  It stated DO maintain eye contact. DO shake your glass from side to side and give it back to express you've had enough to drink.  (It's impolite to have more than 3 cups of coffee or tea).  etc
    Anyway one of the DONT'S was -don't use the A-OK sign or the thumbs up gesture, as that is considered obscene there.  DON'Toffer your left hand as it shows disrespect.  DON'T move when someone stands close to you in conversation because Iraqi's are comfortable with 12" or less.  DON'T sit with your feet on a desk or POINT the soles of your feet to someone as it means you place him under your feet!  don't you think that that sounds like a deliberate insult to place him below other committee members?  I can understand why he was not appeased .

    I understand jihad much better now and i thank you.  I  now that I search for this myself and as soon as I think it within my grasp-- poof, it changes.

    ALF
    March 14, 2003 - 12:18 pm
    AFter Abraham gave Hagar bread & water and sent her into the desert the water ran out near Beer-sheba. We're told that she left the boy under a bush so she doesn't see him die, bursts into tears and God opens her eyes and reveals a well. It says God stays with the boy until he grows up and marries. What happened to her, did she go back to Sarai?

    Hats
    March 14, 2003 - 01:59 pm
    Mahlia,

    I would like to thank you too. Your input gives me a better understanding of the past and present. Mahlia, all of your posts are very, very helpful. I am reading slowly and drinking everything in. Thanks.

    Persian
    March 14, 2003 - 04:20 pm
    Hagar's well is called "The Well of Zam Zam," and it still exists. Muslims from all over the world, who make the Haj (pilgrimage) to Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia each year, take great pleasure in bringing a tiny vial of the water home as a much treasured souvenir of their sojourn. (This is in a similar context to the manner in which Christian pilgrims (especially Catholics)make the trek to Lourdes.

    In Islamic tradition, no, Hagar did NOT return to Sara, but depended upon her son, Ishmael, for her care throughout her life. She was aware from God's direct communication that her son was very special and would be the father of many nations.

    ALF - God bless your grandson! My son, David, called this evening and he will be departing in two hours for "a desert vacation" in the sae locale.

    Customs involving social interaction among Arabs and Muslims can be quite different for Americans who are unaccustomed to or have no real understanding of the reason for the customs.

    For example, the idea of not showing the soles of your feet (or shoes) to a guest is not only that it indicates you are displaying disrespect generally, but that specifically you do not think of the individual any more than you do the dirt on the soles of your shoes.

    The idea of not extending the left hand to welcome someone, to indicate a direction, to touch someone to get their attention, caressing a loved one (especially a child's face) and, MOST PARTICULARLY not eating with the left hand or serving food with the left hand is because the left hand is used exclusively for bathroom hygiene.

    Invitations to a meal are often made three times, since the prospective guest usually turns down the first two invitations: "I've just eaten, thank you anyway;" "my family will expect me home for the meal, thank you anyway." "Only if you insist, will I stay and share a meal with you," even if the guest is starving, the host will NEVER know it. I've had to explain this millions of times to American friends who invite a guest to share a meal; the guest declines; and the Americans go ahead and eat!

    Standing so close while talking to individuals is particularly uncomfortable for Americans. They balk and step backwards. Or their eyes cross and they step backwards. Or in some cases, they put a hand up on the shoulder or chest of the other person and shove them away. The latter can lead to some real hassles! I've learned to use the excuse "Pardon me for my rudeness, but my eyes cannot focus on you when I (not they) stand so close. Do you mind if I step back a pace so that I can focus on you?" I've had conversations with people in the Middle East when they have been so close to me that I felt the droplets of their saliva on my face and I have to mentally grit my teeth not to step away from them. And I'm not even going to discuss halitosis!

    Maintaining eye contact is expected among equals (men of the same age and station in life); NOT a male to a female or a much younger person to someone very mature or highly respected or a well known professional. In fact, it is quite common NOT to maintain eye contact - what we call "lowering your eyes" - especially if the topic of conversation is very sensitive. It took my husband the longest time to maintain eye contact with me when we were discussing family issues. I kept repeating "look at me; I want to see the expression in your eyes when you talk to me." And he replied "I don't want you to see the expression in my eyes." We still laugh about that!

    If you notice in some news broadcasts, when leaders of countries are initially greeting each other, none of them wear glasses (although they might need to). "Covering the eyes" is suspicious behavior. I used to wear dark glasses alot when I traveled with foreign delegations because we were outside alot. I had to mentally remind myself to quickly lift up my glasses whenever I was talking with someone so they would not think I was rude.

    I can't quite fathom Abraham in dark glasses, so the more demure "lowering of eyes," will have to do in this instance. IMO, Hagar came to him "with lowered eyes" but after she gave birth to a son, she most likely beheld Sara with "eyes lifted" which translated in that culture almost as drastically as a physical slap in the face from a handmaiden to her mistress.

    BaBi
    March 15, 2003 - 07:41 am
    Mahlia, thank you so much for those insights into Arabic customs. I especially appreciate the polite excuse for stepping back. I may not have occasion to use it in conversation with an Arab, but it would probably be better than covering the lower part of my face with my hand in conversation with halitosis! ..lol, Babi

    Harold Arnold
    March 15, 2003 - 10:12 am
    Today we move to our third week's assignment. This includes three chapters that describe how each of the three Abrahamic Faiths have interpreted the ancient stories. Perhaps, not surprisingly, each of the three faiths have made their interpretation in a manner supportive to their particular purpose and agenda. As a result we have disagreements on many of the most important studies including basic questions like was Isaac actually killed by Abraham to be resurrected by god, and which of Abraham's two sons Ishmael and Isaac was the subject of the ceremony?

    Chapter 5 on the Jewish interpretation surprised me with its information that some 800 years after Abraham at the height of Jewish political and cultural power, much of the stories of Abraham had been lost. This was the time of the Kings David and Solomon. By that time all that remained of Abraham was the Covenant and promise of land. The story of the binding was generally lost; know only by a few scholars. It took the adversity of loss of political power and pending national destruction and dispersion before the binding stories were reestablished. By this time the Christian era was beginning and curiously the two faiths were developing their respective interpretations of Abraham contemporaneously. Fesler even notes that on some points the Jewish version was influenced by Christian interpretations.

    Let us hear your comments and questions on the interpretations of each of the three faiths. What points are significant to you?

    Ginny
    March 15, 2003 - 11:06 am
    Ella has sent word that she been called away suddenly and we know how much this discussion means to her, she was soo enjoying it. Please continue to keep your super conversation going here till she can get back on!!

    Harold is manfully helping out by putting up the new schedule, thank you, Harold, and we all three hope you will just take the bull by the horns and plow ahead splendidly, (is that or is that not a mixed metaphor?) hahaahah There are some wonderful and very substantive things being said in this discussion and we're all very grateful to you all!

    ginny

    Ella Gibbons
    March 15, 2003 - 04:53 pm
    Am baaack home again! Me poor, dear heart, was fluttering wildly for two days and I just decided it must be looked into before I venture on a little trip next week with my daughter; so I took a few tests at the hospital for two days and am home, having passed those tests with good marks (even got an A on a treadmill stress test and all my cheerleaders, who had not thought a 74-year-old woman should be doing this, were amazed that I got my heart rate up so high); they even bought me a Snickers bar to hang in front of me as a bait to keep going! Haha). I will know more next week, but am trying for now to catch up to all of you!

    I must re-read the next few chapters in order to post and this is where all of the foregoing story is continued and divided into three faiths; that of the Jews, Christians and Muslims.

    But, first, I want to just thank you for continuing the discussion and I have a few questions:

    In HAT'S post (#265) lies the crux of this whole situation I think, and I quote:

    "God had told Abraham and Sarah that they would conceive a son. Obviously, to both of them God took too long. Therefore, Sarah asked Hagar to become a substitute wife and later, a surrogate mother. Abraham went along with it. Their plans were not God's plans. This led to jealousy and all sorts of problematic issues."


    THEIR (Sarah and Abraham) PLANS WERE NOT GOD'S PLANS! Have we discussed this?

    If they had left it in God's hands, would the three faiths we are discussing have developed? Can we put the blame for religious differences on Sarah and Abraham's shoulders?

    GEORGE – and all. Friedman, in a recent column wrote about the difficulties the Bush administration is going to have with all the varying sects in Iraq – they have been warring for centuries and the only reason there has not been a civil war or uprisings among the Sunni, Shiites and the Kurds is Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. What kind of government can we set up that would keep the peace there? Certainly not democracy.

    HAROLD – Friedman likened this situation in Iraq to Yugulosavia and its varying population, and I'm wondering there (and also Iraq) if the problem stems from nationality or religion (in either?) I cannot keep up with all of the reading necessary to be an informed source. I do, however, depend on Harold's knowledge of history and extensive reading in these matters.

    A VERY BIG THANKS TO MAHLIA for sharing all that information about the Muslims and her knowledge about Muslims.

    Later, Ella

    BaBi
    March 16, 2003 - 07:18 am
    I am wondering now, when did it happen that Ishmael's line discontinued the ritual of circumcision? Or why? Did it stop with Ishmael? Or is this information even known?

    On Abraham's reaction to the news re. Sodom and Gomorrah, I do not at all see it the same way Feiler does. It has always seemed to me that Abraham was pleading with God (through his representative angel), and arguing God's own justice and righteousness.

    Even more importantly, I have come to see this as a purposeful 'sharing' on God's part. He wanted to see what Abraham would do, and I believe that Abraham's reaction was pleasing to Him. God was demonstrating here that He was open to pleas for mercy. (I have beaucoup scriptures and explanations to back this up, but that would is an essay, not a note.) The passage goes on to explain that Abraham was told these things because Abraham would teach them to his descendents. Abraham had to learn who this strange God was and what He wanted. This was one of the early lessons. ...Babi

    Malryn (Mal)
    March 16, 2003 - 07:44 am
    Below is a link to the story of Abraham in the Arab News, a Saudi publication, which might interest you.

    Prophet

    Harold Arnold
    March 16, 2003 - 09:19 am
    Ella We are all thankful that you are back. I know the American hospital Gulag at its best is no fun and at its worst can be a traumatizing experience. But do take it a bit easier and have fun on your N.Y. trip with your daughter.

    Regarding the Friedman comparison of the internal ethnic/religious/political diversity in Iraq with that of Yugoslavia there is most certainly comparable ethnic and religious diversity. Ethnic diversity comes from the large Kurdish minority and religious diversity from the Shiite Islamic minority. These forces will be hard to control by any occupying power.

    Also the problem reaches beyond Iraq's boarders into Turkey because Turkish Kurds have long been rebellious there and with Iraqi Kurds will seek recognition as an independent Kurdish state. I was surprised that Turkey turned down the agreement to base American troops there because the agreement included an American guarantee that the present boarders of Iraq would remain intact. By its failure to confirm the agreement the issue of an independent Kurdish state will be a factor if the war proceeds

    Harold Arnold
    March 16, 2003 - 09:42 am
    Malryn, thank you for the link. This appears to be an Islamic interpretation of the story of Abraham's later relations with Hagar and his son Ishmael. I found it an interesting and delightful interpretation. I noted that it referred to Hagar as a "Wife" and to Sarah as the first wife. I don't believe the Christian or Jewish interpretations accord the married status. Also after the separation of Abraham and Hagar and Ishmael, it gives Abraham visitations privileges by including the story of a visit by Abraham.

    Persian, you might comment is this article. I note the article does not give information on the source although it references many of its statements to the Koran. Do you judge it to be a mainstream Islamic interpretation? I think this story if it is a generally accepted Islamic interpretation of the life of Abraham is most timely as our subject this week is how the three descendent faiths have each interpreted their ancestor.

    georgehd
    March 16, 2003 - 10:05 am
    First I want to thank Mahalia for giving us a most interesting perspective from an Islamic point of view. I will be most interested in your comments about pages 160 to 185.

    I have been reading the posts but have remained silent because I am finding this book quite disturbing. I have finished the week's reading (Jewish, Christian and Islamic interpretations) and I am reminded of the almost continual warfare waged by the various religions on one another for the past two thousand years. I said to my wife that Abraham seems to be the source of religious strife (evil) in the world. Actually not Abraham, but those who came after him and who wanted to claim him exclusively.

    Supposedly Abraham believed and had faith in one God, the God of all mankind. He was neither Jewish, Christian or Muslim. His contribution to the world was the idea of monotheism and a direct relationship with one's God. Frankly as a Jew, this is what I believe - that is that a person needs to seek out his or her own personal relationship with God. I confess that the definition of God escapes me as God is not definable in ordinary language. To enter a relationship with God requires a leap of faith - faith that God in fact exists. I confess that I have not been able to make that leap of faith.

    When I think of knowledge, I tend to think of the universe and what we know scientifically about it. We get this kind of knowledge through our senses by experimenting and theorizing about what is reality. The existance of God, in my opinion, cannot be proved. God is not a scientific reality. Rather God exists only if we have faith that God exists. Note that I do not use he or she when referring to God because to do so would imply some kind of human attributes.

    Could mankind have created a real Tower of Babel? By interpreting the Bible in different ways, religious leaders have made it more difficult to communicate with one another. Our faith is the one true faith. Our religion is the one true religion. God is on our side. What religion does God subscribe to?

    I find it most interesting that on page 185 Feiler says: Ignore the details, embrace Abraham!!!!

    What happened to "embrace God"???

    Harold Arnold
    March 16, 2003 - 11:09 am
    I suppose George it is disturbing the way that the three faiths have each interpreted their ancestor and how each of these diverse interpretations has been well designed to serve their own particular purpose and agenda. Yes indeed, the idea disturbs me too!

    To me "embracing Abraham" includes embracing God, the one God of Abraham that Abraham first revealed to all mankind. We will have detailed discussion next week on Abraham as a modern bridge between the interpretations of his children. This week let us remain focused on the extent of the diversity.

    Ella Gibbons
    March 16, 2003 - 01:11 pm
    GEORGE, I agree with your statement - "Supposedly Abraham believed and had faith in one God, the God of all mankind. He was neither Jewish, Christian or Muslim. His contribution to the world was the idea of monotheism and a direct relationship with one's God. Frankly as a Jew, this is what I believe - that is that a person needs to seek out his or her own personal relationship with God."

    And also with BABI's - "GOD wanted to see what Abraham would do, and I believe that Abraham's reaction was pleasing to Him. God was demonstrating here that He was open to pleas for mercy."

    Is there a contradiction in the book that either of you see? Anyone?

    Before we go on to the next chaper of Isaac, it is worth repeating that Feiler ends his conversation with Rami stating that PLACE doesn't matter, BUILDINGS do not matter; but IDEAS do - the power of ideas and the story of Abraham and his big, untouchable GOD - the idea of struggle with GOD matters! I liked that!

    Click here for pictures of Old Jerusalem - Old Jerusalem

    Why was Isaac suspicious of his father's purpose in going to worship with him - any ideas?

    If Isaac was suspicious of the purpose, why wasn't Sarah who worshipped her son and was a bossy wife? Why didn't she forbid the journey?

    Do you believe God was testing Abraham's faith by ordering him to OFFERhis son as a sacrifice? Or is Abraham testing God? Do we all test God at times? Does he test us? In what ways?




    The Shiites and the Sunni, all Muslims, split because of the successors of Muhammad who left only one heir when he died - all of his sons predeceasing him. This heir was a daughter, Fatima, who married Ali and the Shiites believed he was their natural leader; however, not all agreed. Many Muslims believed that although Ali was a political successor to Muhammad, he was not a spiritual one. They believe that a leader is not validated by the state or any formal religious institution but simply by the reputation the individuals hold among each other. (very brief explanation)

    The separation of the Shiites from the Sunnis did not hinder the growth and expansion of Islam, which spread like wildfire after the initial days of transition after the prophet's death. Thee Middle East became dominated with Islamic religion and rule. And North Africa and Europe as well as India and China were to be grounds of Islamic expansion.


    GingerWright
    March 16, 2003 - 01:29 pm
    What I see about these three faiths is that we are all striving for the same thing but taking a different path and all think that there way is the only way. Only God Knows.

    Persian
    March 16, 2003 - 04:41 pm
    HAROLD - yes, the link that Mal provided describes in a straight-forward manner the basic belief in Islam about Abraham and his family.

    ELLA - another point about the split in Islam after the Prophet Mohamed died is that the Sunnis do not believe that the Shi'ites are "true believers" and accord them much less respect - or in some cases, no recognition at all and label them heretics. Consequently, Shi'ites in the Gulf and throughout Iraq have alwys had "minority" status, although they may outnumber the Sunnis (as in Iraq). Of course, in Iran (a non-Arab Islamic country), Shi'ites prevail both in numbers and as a recognized segment of Islam.

    ELLA - I think that we humans test God all the time and He tests us. Case in point: right now, we are going through a "testing" in terms of almost-certain war with Iraq. Of the many hundreds of thousands of men and women in the military and their parents and other loved ones, there certainly is a testing.

    Do we believe that He will actually protect our service personnel; guide their officers in the field; let the planners in Washington be creative enough to make it a quick engagement with a strong emphasis on HUMANITARIAN follow-up for the Iraqi people.

    Are American (and coalition countries') sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters more important to God than those of Iraqi nationality? Do we/they believe in Him more profoundly than the other, thus gaining his favoritism? Does God favor one nationality over another? Does He play favorites at all?

    In a world where our creative auto advertizers ask "What Would Jesus Drive?" I wonder "what would Abraham think/do/say about this potential war situation?"

    GEORGE - from my multicultural background, I believe that even if an individual cannot "make the leap" to faith in God, He can. And I do NOT believe that just because one cannot justify rationally or scientifically that there is God, He can justify his love, care, concern for all of us. Our strengths/weaknesses are not God's. (It's kind of like my grandfather used to say to me occasionally, "even though you are a brat sometimes, I love you anyway." And I believed (and still do) in unconditional love. That's been a constant in our family. As a wife and Mom, I may not "like" my husband and son all the time, but I ALWAYS love them, and woe to the person(s) who try to harm them.

    GingerWright
    March 16, 2003 - 05:05 pm
    Persian

    Wonderfull, Wonderfull post and I thank you for it.

    As for Mal's I did read some and then save it in my favorite's to read the Whole thing.

    Persian
    March 16, 2003 - 06:29 pm
    GINGER - you may already have noticed that although Mal's link takes one directly to the article on ABRAHAM, the following one (click on NEXT) is an equally interesting article on Hagar and Ishmael. In fact, that entire site offers some interesting commentary on Islam for those who may wish to learn more about the historical and religious aspect of the religion.

    GingerWright
    March 16, 2003 - 06:56 pm
    To All

    As I was calling for a Luncheon Brunch this evening one said and I agree that All is Like doing Embroidary as bottom side looks like confusion but when turned over All is is So Beautiful as we are doing here May sound confusioning But in the End as we see Each other where we all want to go we may here How Did You Get Here And we Will Say I Love GOD.

    GingerWright
    March 16, 2003 - 07:07 pm
    Persian OH Yes I click on the next one and that is why I am saving it in my Favorites as in GOD'S house there are many Mansion's we are told.

    Hats
    March 17, 2003 - 06:12 am
    Ella,

    Thank you for the clickables of Old Jerusalem. I enjoyed looking through the photos.

    I don't believe that GOD has a favorite nationality. I believe this is why He is GOD. He is able to love all people equally. After all, He, GOD, created everyone of us. I think GOD'S model way of love is our example. I think learning to accept differences in others is the first step to enjoying more out of life and becoming a better person.

    We are doing it here in this discussion. We are learning about three religions. We are not afraid to learn. We are anxious to know and grasp different ways of worship.

    Ann Alden
    March 17, 2003 - 02:25 pm
    Ella, how did you happen on that wonderful site with the pictures of Jerusalem and others? What a super site! It way cool!

    Ella Gibbons
    March 17, 2003 - 03:21 pm
    THANKS FOR ALL YOUR POSTS, BUT....

    Somehow we are off the subject of our book, which is okay for awhile but we have a lot here to discuss - interesting stuff to talk about and to digest.

    Shall we take one of these chapters at a time? Let's begin with the Jews, I have read this chapter twice now and have a few conclusions of my own and am anxious to hear what conclusions you have reached about Feiler, the history of Judaism, etc.

    GEORGE, are you still with us? Can you remember when and why you started doubting your faith? Why does that happen to a person, when all your life you have believed what you were taught?

    Feiler is questioning all that he has learned about Abraham and decides to find out the history of the man in Jewish history. On page 118, he says - "Long before Christians and Muslims set about reinterpreting Abraham, early Jews were the first to perform reconstructive surgery on their purported father."

    The early Jews needed someone like Abraham whom God had spoken to and he had been exiled as they had been- "he typified their trials." So they adopted him and made him their own (as did the Christians and the Muslims later).

    And so it came to pass, that eventually it the information they had about Abraham was written down - after having spent hundreds of year gathering all they could find, but later they found it was all well and good but it was history and how relevant is history to our present life?

    So MIDRASH was born, meaning to "search, inquire, or interpret" and this process was also picked up by the Christians and the Muslims.

    This is where the questions began - as did our own in this discussion

    The people who lived here started reading Genesis, for example, and they feel, 'Well, it's hard to accept that Abraham is telling Sarah to say she's his sister.'........so they change it. They rewrite the story."


    This, I'm sure, has been done many times by all faiths - don't you agree?

    That is one form of "midrash." The second form involved making the narration fit into the present.

    Abraham became a new and improved person, he was relevant, and as Feiler says he now had a new coat of paint and a new set of tires and he can tell Joe Six-Pack how to live his life.

    I'm going to stop there because I must relate my own experience to this relevancy. When I was a child I was taken to a fundamentalist-type church where hell and damnation was heard much more than God and love; everything was sinful, we were sinners, movies and dancing were sinful (hard for a young person to accept!), painted faces were sinful, one could still work, eat, sleep but that seemed about all.

    Now what do I find in the same type of church? A combo on a stage playing jazz, people clapping for joy, the women are beautiful with cosmetics and heels and sleeveless dresses - sometimes the men come in jeans, HORRORS! And at their get-togethers, picnics and the like, they play cards, they go to movies, they dance!!!

    YES, YES, YES!!

    CHANGE - we must accept change, we must make religion relevant to the present.

    Ella Gibbons
    March 17, 2003 - 03:56 pm
    HAVE ANY OF YOU SEEN CHANGES IN YOUR OWN CHURCH, OR FAITH, OR RELIGION?

    Harold Arnold
    March 17, 2003 - 05:43 pm
    I am convinced there is a always a unique and wonderfully expressive Hebrew word for everything and there is such a word meaning the ideal of interpreting old concepts and adapting them to fit a present condition. It is as Ella has noted MIDRASH. As I mentioned in my Saturday post the Jews used midrash to resurrect Abraham after much of the Abrahamic tradition had been forgotten by the time of King David and King Solomon. Midrash revived the Abrahamic traditions beginning near the end of the first millennium BCE. This was a time of suffering leading to the destruction of the second temple (70 CE), loss of political independence and exile and forced dispersion to different lands. The midrash reestablished Abraham's importance. In Feiler's words on P-125
    In the absence of land or central Temple being Jewish meant visiting a synagogue, observing law, reading Torah, and studding midrash. In this environment beginning in the centuries after Christ and continuing for the next millennium, Abraham became an important tool to boost the morale of beleaguered Jews and help them withstand the pressure to convert. He became a political figure fighting to preserve Israel.


    Feiler continues noting (P-126) that:
    Abraham has become so exalted that God now sits on Abraham's right. But the rabbis didn't stop at making Abraham semidivine they also made him the Idea human; they made him the first Jew.


    I think we are seeing in the midrash a great example of social evolution. In physical evolution specie must adapt to changing physical conditions or become extinct. The condition is the same with social institutions; they too must adapt to their changing environment. The fact that Judaism has survived its 4,000-year existence is testimony to its ability to adapt.

    kiwi lady
    March 17, 2003 - 06:16 pm
    I am turned off organised religion as I see churches embarking into businesses-money being the be all and end all it seems. Even the preachers wives all look like clones of each other with bleached hair and expensive dress and jewellery. Sorry I cannot reconcile this with my idea of what God would want. I am not a person who thinks we should not have fun or look nice but I don't think that preachers and their wives should be up there wearing the most expensive garb and driving the most expensive cars. What about the poor? I am still looking for a church with a value system for today maybe I will find one somewhere! There is a church near my sister where the parking wardens uniforms if sold would feed a pile of homeless. Nah - this is not my idea of modern Christianity!

    Carolyn

    georgehd
    March 17, 2003 - 07:23 pm
    Ella and others, first let me explain that my doubts are about my understanding of God and not my acceptance of Judaism. I was taught always to question - always to seek a better understanding of life and the role that religion plays in our lives. I think Ella, that you are correct that we should discuss the book and not necessarily our own religious views (although I would happily try to do that when we have finished the book.)

    I have never taken the Bible literally but rather have accepted it as an historical story of how man came to accept the idea of one God and how man learned to live a moral life. I understood as a teen ager that our sages (rabbis) wrote extensive opinions about what the Bible meant and these meanings changed over the years. Even today, Orthodox Jews spend much time studying the Bible and Talmud so that they can obey the laws of Judaism as they currently interpret them. There are many Jewish laws that I do not accept.

    I am finding that Feifer seems to be elevating Abraham to a higher position - one next to God. I think that Feifer is doing this because his thesis is that Abraham started man's quest for an understanding of one God. But Abraham to me was a mortal just like the rest of us. Personally I do not want him elevated.

    What I do find most interesting is the fact that all three religions are founded primarily by the acts of men (I do not know any women)who lived long after Abraham and who, in order to gain legitimacy, need to claim Abraham as an ancester. But it is disturbing that in reinterpreting Biblical history, men needed to create religions of exclusivity. They did this more out of political and social need, as opposed to religious need.

    I fear that I am rambling and I do find it difficult to discuss these issues at a distance. For instance, I agree with Kiwi Lady about the failure of organized religion to address very real problems within themselves. But that does not make me question my acceptance of Judaism; I do not want to throw out the baby with the bath water. I think I will stop here and see if I get any kind of reaction. I also want to review the book to see if I can come up with some new insights.

    Harold Arnold
    March 17, 2003 - 08:03 pm
    Question: how does the Jewish Bible differ from the Christian Old Testament? Is the difference just a matter of translation or are there added or excluded books to or from one or the other? Does anyone have detail on the how the Jewish Book of Genisis differs from the modern Christian translations?

    kiwi lady
    March 17, 2003 - 08:10 pm
    From speaking to Jewish friends I gather that one of the differences we have is that we have a personal relationship with God as Christians my friends see their relationship with God differently.

    Genesis- I take the book pretty literally with the understanding that to God one of our days is as a thousand years. I believe in creation not evolution.

    I have always thought of Abraham as one man - a leader of his people the father of us all in our understanding of God.

    Carolyn

    winniejc
    March 17, 2003 - 08:18 pm
    You ought to know that Ella Ha Jeanne Enjoy readin the comments Later

    Persian
    March 17, 2003 - 08:51 pm
    HAROLD - here is a paragraph from "The Differences Between Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Bible." The last sentence is the key. More extensive information is available at Beliefnet.com and many other web sites through Google.

    "This book is the Bible (what Jews call "Tanakh" and Christians call the "Old Testament"). Turning to it for religious orientation, spiritual enrichment, and communal education, we each take away similar lessons: God created and sustains the universe; God established a covenant with the people Israel, God's revealed word guides Israel to a life of righteousness; and God will ultimately redeem Israel and the whole world. Yet, Jews and Christians interpret the Bible differently on many points. Such differences must always be respected."

    Hats
    March 18, 2003 - 06:48 am
    I am not involved in any organized religion. I have become fearful of labels. I guess my faith could be likened to a patchwork quilt. If I were asked to liken myself to an animal, I would liken myself to the Duckbilled Platypus. I do believe in God and prayer and striving to love my fellow man.

    Ann Alden
    March 18, 2003 - 07:45 am
    The information in Feilor's book has certainly opened my mind to better understanding of anyone's beliefs. I had no idea that the Bible has become a convenience for the Jews and the Christians, even the Muslims. But, at the same time, it is there for all to read and inpret on their own. The problem with doing so may be that we have to search for an interpretation that is real and true. In a perfect world, what I would imagine happening, is everyone listening to their inner spirtual self and caring about the feelings and circumstances of their fellow world travelers.

    Are we depending on a historical myth on which to base our faith in a monotheistic God, or are we going further and deeper, and building our faith on other self understandings, after deciding to accept a monotheistic God?

    In order to develop an orderly religion and therefore, convert many to a way of believing, churches are formed. I think one has to look at the history of mankind and see where these ideas have originated. After all, we have Abraham, in charge of a large contingency, probably trying to keep them in line and peaceful, claiming that God spoke to him and this is how its going to be from now on! There will only be one God, because that makes things simpler. We are moving all the time, so now, we don't have to haul all those idols or statues around with us everytime we change locations. We have, as many of us have said, a "portable" God. God within us! So, maybe Abraham is a strong leader, in spite of his kowtowing to Sarah on certain matters. Well, he is human!

    To me the most important message that comes from all of the people that Feilor interviews, is one of tolerance and love.

    Ella Gibbons
    March 18, 2003 - 02:24 pm
    THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR POSTS!

    I noticed that both Carolyn and HATS have stated that they have become more secular as they have grown older; however, regardless of our individual ideas of reaching God, organized religion is changing and adapting as Harold pointed out and we all may need it in our lives at some future time.

    GEORGE, your comments were very interesting! I quote - "But it is disturbing that in reinterpreting Biblical history, men needed to create religions of exclusivity. They did this more out of political and social need, as opposed to religious need." Can you expand on that, we would all like to hear more of your views.

    And, Ann stated – "I had no idea that the Bible has become a convenience for the Jews and the Christians, even the Muslims. A "convenience" – will you explain that statement, Ann? I have never heard the Bible described in that way, interesting!

    We will finish up the chapter on Jews tomorrow and then discuss the Christians.

    Feiler has posited questions that he doesn't answer in our book: - as a Jew he questions how he should relate to the larger world, especially when it's hostile to his religion. Is there an answer?

    Jews, historically, have had to fight a larger war for their religious views than others, or so it seems to me. The holocaust was in our lifetime. Is it any wonder that they fight so desperately for Israel today? And the Palestinians, feeling they have been denied their land, fight back! Can it, will it, be solved in our lifetime?

    Feiler also asks which identity he should put first – should he be an American-Jew or a Jewish-American; a question that I believe needs no answer. Judaism is a religion not a race (am I not right?) therefore there is no question here, or should we all say we are Catholic-Americans, or Methodist-Americans?

    Our author states that Abraham became so powerful to the Jews that he became almost a saint and that the Christians took on the same notion in the life of Christ and the two ideas happened at about the same time in history. Interesting, isn't it?

    Have you noticed that Feiler is deliberately linking all religions to Abraham and, consequently, avoiding all dissimilarities? Is that his purpose in writing this book or, perhaps, a way of selling more books?

    Later, ella

    kiwi lady
    March 18, 2003 - 02:31 pm
    My belief system is not changed I just don't believe in the way some churches are going it is against my own personal values and I cannot in conscience go along with it. Its the money thing and the way it is getting spent.

    Carolyn

    kiwi lady
    March 18, 2003 - 02:34 pm
    My faith has been somewhat restored when I read in our morning paper that a retired lady doctor is off to the Middle East to help out the Palestinians and has given away all her books etc in case she does not make it back. She said "God willing" she will come home. This is my idea of Christianity at work.

    Carolyn

    kiwi lady
    March 18, 2003 - 02:39 pm
    I better explain - we used to take street kids to church- there was not a good reception- we asked for an unused church building to use as a drop in centre for these kids on Friday nights we were told we could not use it as these kids might damage the property. The house we wanted to use was very old. As we had these kids coming into our own home the response we got gutted us. We did not find any fellowship for years we felt settled in- but I do have to say that one of the big churches did take very good care of us while my husband was dying and for that I am very grateful. I however feel we have to reach out to the great unlovable as well as our own congregation. I feel this is essential.

    Carolyn

    Ann Alden
    March 18, 2003 - 03:42 pm
    Maybe convenience isn't the correct word, Ella. By that, I meant that the three theologies have all taken the biblical stories and used them confirm their own beliefs or understanding of these stories/myths. So, we have the Bible, the Koran and the Torah. Each says much the same thing when it comes to Genesis but after that the leaders(church fathers) had to make what they believed and wanted to practice convenient to the their times. Isn't the story of Abraham, skelatally anyway, just about the same in each of their Genesis? But different where they needed it to agree with what they believed and practiced.

    Persian
    March 18, 2003 - 05:05 pm
    ANNE - I believe that "convenience" is the correct term, since it implies that although the three religions can inter-relate on some issues, the elders have (over the centuries) interpreted (and re-interpreted according to the period in society in which they find themselves)what will/will not be accepted and what is "THE" correct way to interpret scripture, often even presenting their own interpretations as "GOD's word." Thus, the actions of the elders are not only a convenience, but according to them (at various periods) the only right way and woe to those individuals, families, communities who do not follow in their footsteps.

    On the other hand, whereas God has given humans the full assurance (for believers)that He offers many forms of protection (including salvation through Jesus), he also has given us a brain and the power to reason. And I've always believed that He expects us to use those powers, not just stand around and wait to be told what to do in any given situation.

    IMO, it's much more important (especially in these times) to interact with people of various backgrounds on a societal level, rather than a religious confrontational level (and I've sounded that trumpet very loudly to many Muslims, as well as ardent Christians). In America, we are fortunate to be able to speak our thoughts aloud without fear of retribution. That is, unfortunately, not possible everywhere in the world. For example, I spent some time in China and was cautioned repeatedly by university colleagues to "watch what I said." Several of my Chinese students were "underground Christians" and two (I leanred just before I left the country) were from Jewish families, originally in Kaifang. With these young students, I talked freely about Christianity and Judaism - the latter in detail, since the students did not have any religious training and were ignorant of many aspects of Judaism. Can you imagine having to take your students to an open field and sit down in the middle to talk with them, rather than in your own home or office?

    Again, I believe that as we move again in the book under discussion, we will learn that "tolerance" is the name of the game - perhaps not in ancient times or among the various scholars who insisted over the centuries that their way was the only way. But for us, it should work, just as it has in this discussion. Vive la difference!

    kiwi lady
    March 18, 2003 - 06:16 pm
    Guess I am lucky as we have always had religious tolerance here. I had an Irish friend who fled Northern Ireland with her family and said how good it was to live in a country where you weren't judged by your religion. I had a think about that as yesterday I was followed in a line of traffic by a little car in which were two Sikhs in their turbans.

    Each day I see a conservative Muslim man who does a big walk round our block each day. He wears a traditional robe and head gear the name of which I don't know. The little corner shop I frequent is owned by devout Hindis who I have got to know very well over the years.

    All these different groups make my neighbourhood very colorful.

    Carolyn

    Hats
    March 19, 2003 - 12:05 am
    Ella, I agree with Carolyn. I have a belief system.

    I am definitely aware that I need GOD today, and I will need HIM tomorrow. At this time, I do not choose to affiliate myself with one particular religion. Remember the t.v. program, The Waltons? On one particular show, The father was describing his belief in GOD.

    Olivia, his wife, always wanted him to attend church with the family. One day he described his feelings to John Boy. In so many words, he said that he could see GOD everyday from the mountain. He saw God in the beauty of nature, the mountain, the sky, the flowers, the birds, etc.

    If you remember, he was a wonderful family man too and a wonderful neighbor. He just believed differently from Olivia. Yet, He knew there was a A GREAT ARCHITECT. That's the words my father used to describe GOD.

    So, please do not doubt that I have a FAITH. I live daily by prayer and striving to keep GOD'S hand in my hand.

    Ann, I think the term "convenient" fits perfectly.

    Hats
    March 19, 2003 - 12:16 am
    Persian and Carolyn,

    Your experiences have been very inspiring. Persian, your post about teaching in China and Underground Christians is very, very, enlightening.

    Hats
    March 19, 2003 - 12:36 am
    Ella,

    Before we move from Judaism to Christianity, I am reminded of a part of my family history that is near and dear to my heart. When we lived in Pennsylvania, my sister worked for a Jewish family. During her live in service with this family, I gave birth to my oldest son on New Year's Eve.

    Unfortunately, while the rest of my family and friends were with me at the hospital, my sister was working and serving at a party given at this Jewish family's home. This family loved my sister dearly, and they were aware of my pregnancy. The plans were that Dorothy would definitely get off in time for Hattie's baby. As we all know, babies have their own time clock.

    As soon as I gave birth, my family made a call to my sister. My sister became loudly excited and let the whole party know that a son had been born into our family. My sister said it was a MAGICAL moment. All of the party cried out, "MAZEL TOV!!" and gave a toast.

    Now, those two words are very special words in my family. My sister has died, but the words live on as a part of our family's history.

    Ann Alden
    March 19, 2003 - 06:52 am
    Hats, what a poignant story! You must write that all down in your son's remembrance book, if you have one. Everyone has their own story to tell, right? Mazel tov!

    Persian, just to be fecetious, would you call the religions of the ancient world a form of crowd control? Kidding!! kidding!

    Even though many of us are lucky enough to have free speech in our home country, as Persian says, when you are in another's country, its wise to watch your words. As it would be in anyone's home here in America. Although I was raised in a Christian atmosphere and church, I have always fought for the "other guy" to believe whatever he wanted. What more can you wish for your fellow travelers but peace and prosperity in this world and the hope of a heaven afterward? Again, IMHO, its trust in a creator that keeps many of us going.

    Persian
    March 19, 2003 - 08:02 am
    WE have some funny stories in our family that keep us laughing over the years. When my son was first ordanined and accepted a post as pastor of a small Christian church, I was invited to attend his first worship service. Of course, I was proud to do so and enjoyed meeting the parishoners. At the end of the service, my son took a moment to say that on their way out of service, he hoped they would greet his Mom, who was visiting. Everyone stopped and spoke to me, but I remember especially a little elderly lady with blue hair who shook my hand warmly, patted my cheek in an affectionate gesture and said "Pastor told us that you work with a lot of foreign people. Do you know any A-rabs?" I explained that my husband was Egyptian, but the lady jut said "that's nice, Dear, but do you know any A-rabs?" To this day, whenever my son wants to tease me, he says "that's nice, Dear . . ." and leaves the rest of the sentence hanging.

    Another wonderful story about diversity involves my A-rab husband when we visited my son's family in North Carolina. While we were there, we stopped to have our car washed and were standing behind an Afro-American Muslim couple. The woman was fully veiled and the man wore an African Dashiki and cap. He greeted my husband, who was dressed in jeans, sweat shirt and sneakers with a guarded "Good Morning." I greeted the woman in Arabic and offered a comment about how beautiful the morning was. The husband immediately turned to me and started talking, but MY husband stepped in between us and asked the fellow (in English) what he had just said to me. I whispered "he just said 'Good Morning and indeed it is a beautiful morning.'" My husband replied "he did NOT say that!" Finally, it dawned on me that my husband had not understood the man's Arabic filtered through a deep rural Southern accent! So when I want to tease my husband, I mention "what a beautiful day it is in North Carolina." My husband grumbles, but I've caught him smiling, too.

    My point here is that there is richness in diversity and also some humor if one looks for it.

    georgehd
    March 19, 2003 - 08:34 am
    Harold asked about differences in these texts. First of all there was no original text. All of the written material stems from oral traditions. These oral traditions were highly influenced by the culture in which the story was first told and by succeeding cultures. Early writing was imprecise, lacked puctuation and in the case of Hebrew, lacked vowels. The need to write down these oral traditions happened when the Israelites were expelled from their land and forced to move to Babylonia. In order to keep religious traditions alive and available to the people, scribes began to write down the oral tradition and in doing so began a long line of interpretation, reexamination, and argument. Scribes made mistakes in copying and these mistakes were passed on to later generations. In addition the meanings of words changed with time. Thus there is no 'true' version of the Bible.

    The Hebrew text has undergone many revisions. For instance the Tanakh that I use was revised in 1985 and again in 1999. These revisions are the result of scholarly study of manuscripts that do exist. Biblical translations began about 2200 years ago when Greek replaced Hebrew and Aramaic as the vernacular of the day. This translation was know as the "Septuagint", latin for seventy because there were roughly seventy translators.

    Later the Bible was translated into Aramaic and this is known as the Targum. The Septuagint and the Targum are the oldest translations of the Bible. By the way, the Bible consists of the Torah, the original five books of Moses, The Prophets and The Writings. The Septuagint is the work used by all of Christianity as a basis for later translations.

    Jerome (340-420CE) produced the first Latin translation known as the Vulgate, the Bible in the language of the common people. This Bible was used by all of Christianity in Europe until the Reformation. In 1526 two translations appeared by Martin Luther, in German, and William Tyndale in English. The latter became the King James Version of 1611. This version became the basis for The Holy Scriptures, The American Standard Version and further modifications of those. I am leaving out a lot of translation history.

    Torah consists of the Five Books of Moses. The Prophets (9 Major Prophets and 12 Minor Prophets. The Writings consist of books such as the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes Ester, Daniel- in total 12 books ending with Chronicles 1 and 2. All of this is collectively called Tanakh. The work Tanakh comes from the first letters of the three sections (Torah [Law], Nebiim [Prophets] and Kethubim [Writings]. Jewish congregations around the world read the same portions of the Bible each week beginning in the fall and the entire Torah is finished each year. However, because of its length, selection is made every week and not every word is actually read.

    The Christian Bible (Old Testament) is essentially the same as Tanakh. There are differences in order and translation but the same material is covered. It is interesting to note that for Jews there is no "New" or "Old" Testament. Just the Torah.

    The New Testament was written much later after the birth and death of Jesus; it has importance and meaning for Christians but not Jews and Muslims.

    The Torah that I personally find most useful is one that has extensive commentary as well as contemporary writings pertaining to the topic under discussion. Since I do not read Hebrew, I read only the English translation.

    I think that I mentioned in a previous post the book, Understanding the Old Testament by Bernhard Anderson. This book has lengthy discussions of how the Bible came to be and interesting charts that show the differences between the Hebrew Bible, The Protestant Christian Bible and the Catholic Christian Bible.

    kiwi lady
    March 19, 2003 - 08:57 am
    This is a bit off topic but had to mention it. The book of Leviticus. When one first reads it one thinks what a load of rigmarole. However when one reads it thinking of the time in which it is set, it is so sensible. Lots of the laws were aimed at keeping the people healthy and stopping the spread of diseases. I was amazed! I thought it was rather a miracle book then. If you have never read Leviticus have another look at it.

    Carolyn

    Malryn (Mal)
    March 19, 2003 - 09:10 am
    I do not have this book, but have been very interested in this discussion and have read the posts. What George has posted interests me very much, and coincides with what I found out on searches and in some study I did because of the Story of Civilization discussion. It was in that discussion that I learned of the Septuagint translation of the Bible and researched it and other translations.

    I was raised in the Universalist-Unitarian religion, which is essentially a creedless religion. The closest thing to a creed is a belief in the brotherhood of all human beings.

    The pulpit of the church where I went as a child was fairly frequently occupied by a rabbi of one of the synagogues in that small New England city, while the minister of the church I attended spoke at the temple. As children we were taught about many different world religions. Judaism was only one.

    At some point in my life I bought a copy of the Torah because I was interested in what was in it. I was surprised, if not a little disappointed, to find that it contained much of what was in the old testament of the Bible I had read and been taught when I was a child. For some reason, I had expected something different.

    After September 11, 2001, I searched for and found the Koran on the web and read a good part of that. I have also read a good deal about the various kinds of Buddhism which evolved from the teachings of the Buddha, and I made it a point to learn something about Hinduism, since Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau and other Transcendentalists ((all Unitarians), whose work I had read from the time I was very young, is sometimes based on Hindu beliefs. I also took a course in World Religions years and years ago when I was in college.

    The result of all of this is that I have discovered many, many similarities among all of these religions, and have wondered somewhat sadly why such conflict can arise because of differences in them.

    Mal

    Hats
    March 19, 2003 - 09:16 am
    I grew up in a Methodist Church. Then, as a teen, I went to a Baptist Church because my friend and I thought the minister was handsome, and he gave very loud sermons.

    The last church I attended was not mainstream. Carolyn, in this church, I was introduced to Leviticus. There are many wonderful health laws in Leviticus. So, I agree with you.

    kiwi lady
    March 19, 2003 - 09:24 am
    Actually Hats reading Leviticus made me even more in awe of the concern of God for the tribes of Israel and the way he sought to communicate to an ancient people a way to minimise the death rate from disease etc. Mindboggling isn't it?

    Carolyn

    georgehd
    March 19, 2003 - 09:28 am
    Harold asked about differences in these texts. First of all there was no original text. All of the written material stems from oral traditions. These oral traditions were highly influenced by the culture in which the story was first told and by succeeding cultures. Early writing was imprecise, lacked puctuation and in the case of Hebrew, lacked vowels. The need to write down these oral traditions happened when the Israelites were expelled from their land and forced to move to Babylonia. In order to keep religious traditions alive and available to the people, scribes began to write down the oral tradition and in doing so began a long line of interpretation, reexamination, and argument. Scribes made mistakes in copying and these mistakes were passed on to later generations. In addition the meanings of words changed with time. Thus there is no 'true' version of the Bible.

    The Hebrew text has undergone many revisions. For instance the Tanakh that I use was revised in 1985 and again in 1999. These revisions are the result of scholarly study of manuscripts that do exist. Biblical translations began about 2200 years ago when Greek replaced Hebrew and Aramaic as the vernacular of the day. This translation was know as the "Septuagint", latin for seventy because there were roughly seventy translators.

    Later the Bible was translated into Aramaic and this is known as the Targum. The Septuagint and the Targum are the oldest translations of the Bible. By the way, the Bible consists of the Torah, the original five books of Moses, The Prophets and The Writings. The Septuagint is the work used by all of Christianity as a basis for later translations.

    Jerome (340-420CE) produced the first Latin translation known as the Vulgate, the Bible in the language of the common people. This Bible was used by all of Christianity in Europe until the Reformation. In 1526 two translations appeared by Martin Luther, in German, and William Tyndale in English. The latter became the King James Version of 1611. This version became the basis for The Holy Scriptures, The American Standard Version and further modifications of those. I am leaving out a lot of translation history.

    Torah consists of the Five Books of Moses. The Prophets (9 Major Prophets and 12 Minor Prophets. The Writings consist of books such as the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes Ester, Daniel- in total 12 books ending with Chronicles 1 and 2. All of this is collectively called Tanakh. The work Tanakh comes from the first letters of the three sections (Torah [Law], Nebiim [Prophets] and Kethubim [Writings]. Jewish congregations around the world read the same portions of the Bible each week beginning in the fall and the entire Torah is finished each year. However, because of its length, selection is made every week and not every word is actually read.

    The Christian Bible (Old Testament) is essentially the same as Tanakh. There are differences in order and translation but the same material is covered. It is interesting to note that for Jews there is no "New" or "Old" Testament. Just the Torah.

    The New Testament was written much later after the birth and death of Jesus; it has importance and meaning for Christians but not Jews and Muslims.

    The Torah that I personally find most useful is one that has extensive commentary as well as contemporary writings pertaining to the topic under discussion. Since I do not read Hebrew, I read only the English translation.

    I think that I mentioned in a previous post the book, Understanding the Old Testament by Bernhard Anderson. This book has lengthy discussions of how the Bible came to be and interesting charts that show the differences between the Hebrew Bible, The Protestant Christian Bible and the Catholic Christian Bible.

    Harold Arnold
    March 19, 2003 - 09:45 am
    George, thank you for the comment on the differences between the Jewish and Christian Bibles. During the past 70 years I know in the Protestant Christians case there have been several new edition published coming out of new studies and based of new translations of the old text. When I was a young kid in the 1930's my first bible was of the King James version. I understand this version with its Elizabethan English contemporaneous to Shakespeare is still considered the most poetically beautiful of the lot. The Catholic bible I understand, is an English translation from the Latin vulgate prepared by St Jerome in the 5th century. The several revised; "standard" editions published in the 20th century were translations from the earliest written versions available from several ancient languages.

    Is what Christians know as the "Book of Genesis" a part of the Torah? Can any one comment on any difference between the Jewish version of Genesis and the Christian?

    As Feiler mentioned, one of the Dead Sea Scrolls contained a version of the book of Isaiah 1,000 years earlier than the earliest previously known text. Wouldn't it be interesting to see a detailed comparison of the two texts? Sort of likes the kid's party game when a sentence is read to the first kid in a long line and he passes it on orally to the next kid and so on down the line. At the end of the line the message is likely to emerges quite different from the original.

    Harold Arnold
    March 19, 2003 - 09:56 am
    Persian, perhaps you might comment on the availability of ancient written Islamic documents. Since Islam is the youngest of the three faiths with a relatively late inception date in the 7th century CE, there would seem to be a better chance that documents comtemporaenous to the time of the prophet and his early successors are still in existence? What can you tell us concerning the availability of early writings and the developement of the Koran into its present written form?

    BaBi
    March 19, 2003 - 10:20 am
    Harold, the first five books of the Old Testament are the same as the Torah. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. While there may be some differences in specific scriptures, they are on the whole pretty much the same. I have never done any detailed study to see where the texts may differ. If anyone else has, I'd be interested to know what they found. ...Babi

    Hats
    March 19, 2003 - 10:24 am
    Carolyn,

    It is mind boggling.

    Persian
    March 19, 2003 - 10:27 am
    HAROLD - here's a couple of links from a google search reflecting comments from historians about early interpretations (and misinterpretations) of the Qur'an. Several more are available from google. I just typed in "Early Arabic Interpretations of the Koran." For more contemporary information, anything by Bernard Lewis (a distinguished classical Islamic scholar)would be interesting as a companion to this discussion of Abraham.

    http://www.corkscrew-balloon.com/02/03/1bkk/04b.html

    http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/features99/orientalist.htm

    Hats
    March 19, 2003 - 10:37 am
    Persian,

    Thank you for the links. I would like to learn more. I enjoyed reading your family stories this morning. I had a good chuckle.

    Hats
    March 19, 2003 - 01:59 pm
    Persian,

    The top link is fascinating reading. I remember hearing the uproar about the book, The Satanic Verses. I have not read it.

    I had trouble relating the Sun Maid White Raisins to the Koran or the article. Could you explain, Please?? I am interested in learning.

    Persian
    March 19, 2003 - 02:28 pm
    HATS - here's the paragraph from the first link which explains where the phrase "white raisin" comes from and explains that it was misinterpreted to mean "virgin."

    "For example, the famous passage about the virgins is based on the word "hur," which is an adjective in the feminine plural meaning simply "white." Islamic tradition insists the term "hur" stands for "houri," which means virgin, but Mr. Luxenberg insists that this is a forced misreading of the text. In both ancient Aramaic and in at least one respected dictionary of early Arabic, "hur" means "white raisin."

    Hats
    March 19, 2003 - 03:02 pm
    Thanks, Persian.

    Ella Gibbons
    March 19, 2003 - 03:05 pm
    WHAT A GREAT DISCUSSION ALL OF YOU ARE HAVING, AND I AM SORRY TO INTRUDE! But we must get on with our discussion of Christians, Christianity, etc……

    which reminds me of a little story I once heard where an Eskimo asked a missionary if he would go to hell if he had never heard of God and Jesus Christ, and the missionary said, "Of course not, if you have never heard." The Eskimo then said – "Well, why then did you tell me?"

    Hahaha!

    So I am telling you not of hell or heaven, but of our schedule - time beckons – we are behind.

    "The Christian interpretation (of Abraham) grew out of the Jewish one and for generations offered a similarly broad message, that Abraham's blessing was open to all people, regardless of lineage. But over time, just as Jews tried to claim Abraham uniquely, Christians attempted to commandeer Abraham for themselves. The deterioration of the relationship between Jews and Christians can be seen as vividly as anyplace else in their rivalry over their shared father."


    It is essential, I think, that we read the above paragraph clearly as we start our discussion of the Christians and their religion.

    Isn't it strange that this relationship – this deterioration - between the two faiths should have come from a man such as Abraham?

    As you read this chapter, how do you interpret this split between Jews and Christians? Is it explained well by Feiler?

    Could it have been avoided? Who caused it to happen and why?

    kiwi lady
    March 19, 2003 - 05:39 pm
    Mm I have always been taught that both faiths came from Abraham not that he was exclusively ours. That Ishmael became the Islamic branch and Isaac the Jewish. Christians did not come into the picture until the ministry of Christ. I don't know why some Christians would claim Abraham as being exclusively theirs its not biblically correct.

    Carolyn

    Ann Alden
    March 19, 2003 - 06:36 pm
    In my book about the Religions of the World, one of the descriptions of Christianity goes like this:

    No other religion even Judaism, has ever placed such emphasis on the fatherhood of God, or on the fact that every human being is more than God's servant--he is God's own child.

    I have read the book's story of Christianity(totally) and it never mentions Abraham. It was published in 1957, so from what Feilor says, some of the emphasis was more implicit in the far past but has changed. Where and when does the Messiah message come into all this? Why, if they had Abraham, did the Jews think that they needed a Messiah? And, why did the apostles and the followers of Christ think that he was "The One"?

    I like the way Feilor has written the explanation of how Paul went about writing his epistles/letters and why he wrote the way he did. He was proselytising? Setting down the rules for a new theology/religion/sect?

    georgehd
    March 19, 2003 - 06:44 pm
    Ella, I think that we are going to have a problem with your question about claims to Abraham. I do not think that Feiler's thesis is correct and I am finding the book a little short when it comes to scholarship. The Israelites became a nation of God at Mount Sinai when God spoke to the people, not just to Moses. This was the real beginning of Judaism as we know it. Monotheism may have been introduced by Abraham, but his monotheism was clan or family related as I understand it.

    Christianity did not begin with Abraham but with the followers of Jesus. Islam did not begin with Abraham but with the followers of Mohammed. In other words, Abraham did not found any religion.

    Feiler wants us to see the difficulties that exist between the three religions as stemming from their claiming Abraham as their own - possibly their origin. I do not accept this premise. Feiler would like us to believe that if we all understood each other and accepted each others faiths as legitamit, we would all then get along. I do not accept this either. There are political, sociological, economic and even racial considerations that come into play. Not just religious ones. Feiler glosses over a lot of Middle East history because he wants Abraham to become more important.

    At the beginning of this discussion, there was mention of the fact that no movie had ever been made about Abraham. I think that there is good reason for this. He has not been deemed that important to warrant a movie. Please do not get me wrong. Abraham was important for his time; his introduction of monotheism was very important but it took place in a time when idols were worshipped and where there were multiple gods. Abraham introduced an idea and it is hard to make a movie of an idea.

    One other point that I just thought of and which may be way off base. Abraham was the father of Ishmael and Isaac; therefore Jews and Muslims can claim lineage to Abraham. But what about Christians? There the link is much more tenuous (in my opinion).

    By the way I do not think that Judaism ever claimed Abraham exclusively. Judaism never elevated men to god like roles. That was the whole point of Mount Sinai. God spoke to the people directly. There was no Moses, no Abraham, no human being between man and God.

    georgehd
    March 19, 2003 - 06:53 pm
    No, Ella, Feiler does not explain anything very well. The book is so short that it cannot really explain anything. Feiler relied on personal contacts as a resource for much of the book and therefore the book is really a personal interpretation of Abraham's role in history.

    Persian
    March 19, 2003 - 10:32 pm
    BRAVO! I've been waiting for someone to indicate that although this is a very interesting book, it is NOT well documented, other than by personal accounts of Feiler's interactions with people of his own choosing whom he visits (or visits are arranged for him). This is indeed "a good read," by an author who is conducting his own personal "search," but there is so much historical background information (as well as biblical scholarship)that is not mentioned (nor even referred to in passing) that to readers who do not have a comparative religion background or interest in other religions, much important information is not apparent.

    Feiler's hope that everyone should try to get along better clearly is a nice thought, but romantic, not realistic. The political, sociological and economic concerns which George mentions in his post above are reality; they cannot be ignored. The racial issue is equally important and raises it's ugly head in many ways.

    For example, the discrimination of Ethiopian Jews in Israel; the discrimination of Sudanese Muslims in Egypt; the hatred of Shi'ite Muslims (many of whom are descended from Persians and thus non-Arabs) by Sunni Muslims in Arab countries(particularly in Saudi Arabia and Iraq). Improved relations among these and others will not come about just because we "make nice" with each other. It takes work - a lot of hard work, and a thorough understanding of the historical reasons for the differences (whether they make sense to us in the 21st century or not).

    Trying to understand these issues is similar to what is happening in the USA right now as we try to figure out WHY are Americans hated by so many people in other countries? Could it perhaps be because we are culturally arrogant (i.e., speak to me in English only), xenophobic, greedy, have loose morals as a nation, have very high incidences of drunkeness, drug abuse (which leads to child prostution of both genders, and slavery of minors (particularly children from Asia brought into the USA on a regular and illegal basis), sell weapons to minors with abandon, and view pornography as "entertainment." Certainly these things go on in other regions of the world, but some/all of these actions might just be why Americans are disliked so intensely, especially in the more conservative/traditional global sectors.

    Now back to Abraham and who Feiler tells us he really was!

    In George's comment about the Christian claim to Abraham being tenuous, I wonder how seriously it has been noted that Christianity was considered (by some) to be a "break-away" sect of Judaism, while others considered it totally separate - an entirely "new" religion?

    I've had discussions with fundamentalist Christians who became very agitated when I asked "how on earth can you consider that Paul "converted" to Christianity?" You cannot "convert" from Judaism; one can take up another religion, but that individual remains a Jew. One can choose to be secular, but remains a Jew. One can have no religious or spiritual faith whatsoever (a non-believer), but remains a Jew.

    So in this sense how, indeed, do Christians lay claim to Abraham, except through their Jewish forefathers? Otherwise, that is almost as absurd as Sadam Hussein claiming that he is descended directly from the Prophet Mohamed.

    Although I don't remember his name at the moment, there is a high ranking Catholic official (perhaps a Cardinal, but more likely a Bishop) who is Jewish. He refers to himself as "a Jew who claims Catholicism as my religion." (I've heard him speak and read about him, so I'll check to see if I can find his name.)

    Now back to Feiler's Abraham and who he really was!

    kiwi lady
    March 20, 2003 - 05:40 am
    I have a Jewish friend who three years ago converted to Christianity. People who do this are called Messianic Jews.

    Carolyn

    Hats
    March 20, 2003 - 06:37 am
    Ann,

    Thank you for your quote.

    I agree with Persian and George. Feiler's ideas are romanticized, not truly reality based with what we see and hear every day in the news. I don't think it is correct to "play pretend" that differences betweeen these three religions aren't in existence.

    Also, I think his book should have been longer. Before I can grasp one point, he is introducing another one. Three important religions, but he leaves us hanging in the air, our mouths widened and waiting for more details.

    In Feilor's effort to create unity between the three religions, he has created confusion, confused thoughts.

    Hats
    March 20, 2003 - 06:53 am
    When I went to church, it seems that I remember learning more about Moses and David than Abraham. I was taught that David was a man after God's own heart, and of course, Moses opened the Red Sea and led the Israelites out of bondage.

    In Feiler's book, I did learn how often Paul mentioned Abraham. When reading the Bible, I had always focused on Paul and his inspiring letters. I missed the fact that Abraham and his faith were vital to the conversion of the Gentiles.

    Hats
    March 20, 2003 - 07:33 am
    To give some credit to Bruce Feiler, for the first time, I am beginning to understand the strife between Judaism and Christianity. If I understand correctly, The Jewish people felt that Jesus was stripping away part of their identity by saying that He was divine and therefore, superseded the importance of Abraham.

    Bruce Feiler writes,

    "From the Christian perspective, Jews deny Jesus his right to be considered divine. From the Jewish perspective, Jesus denies Jews--or at least the Jews he's arguing with--what for centuries has defined their dentity: the right to be considered children of Abraham....Without Abraham, the Jews have lost their connection to God. And suddenly, Abraham is no longer the shared father of all humanity; he's the expression of the rift between Christians and jews." (Pg. 184 in the large print book)

    This is such an Aha moment for me. I always knew why Christians felt angry towards the Jews, but I never heard the Jewish side of the story until I read Bruce Feiler's book. For that one reason, I am beginning to turn my opinion and think maybe I judged his book too quickly.

    To me, This lesson alone makes the book worth reading and worth a second reading. Therefore, I am changing my negative opinions of his book. This is a weighty subject and surely, we can't gather all of its facts in one reading.

    Ann Alden
    March 20, 2003 - 07:54 am
    Hats

    IMHO, for the first time, we have an easy to read and understand book that causes me to look further into this premise. Yes, the book is light but that allows more people to read it and then go on from there. This whole idea is handled lightly and of course, there is so much more to learn.

    It is not easy and maybe impossible for all of this old world to agree on much of anything but I think Feilor is making an attempt with his referral to Abraham's momotheism.(Ooops, a Freudian slip?---maybe!)

    Here's what my book, Great Religions of the World says about Judaism:

    The first prayer the Jew learns as a child and the last he is commanded to say before he dies:"Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One."

    These trememdous words, uttered to the Jewish people by Moses as the spokesman of God, mark a sharp dividing line in the world's religions. For they created a new concept of God. Not only Judaism, but Christianity and Islam rest on this concept--strict monotheism. That is what sets them apart from the world's other major concepts of divine and human order, i.e., Oriental religions and Greek thought."

    Again, there is no mention of Abraham!

    Hats
    March 20, 2003 - 08:15 am
    Ann, exactly.

    I am overwhelmed this morning by new thoughts from Feiler. Always, to be blunt, I have heard that the Jews denied Christ. NOW, I am happily and willingly learning that there has been a DOUBLE DENIAL. I would like to point again to the quote I gave from Feiler's book. It is in the above post. The Jewish people have been denied, by Christians, their Prophet Abraham. Can two wrongs make a right??? I don't think so!

    Persian
    March 20, 2003 - 08:45 am
    Carolyn - here's a link that gives additional information about Messianic Jews. I live in the metropolitan Washington DC area and there are numerous communities of like-minded Messianic Jews in this area, who do not relinquish their Jewish heritage and convert to Christianity, but as the information in the link indicates, they believe they become more fulfilled as Jews. On the other hand, the Evangelical Jews are more in line with familiar Christian tradition and beliefs, especially pertaining to Jesus as the Son of God. In the latter case, one could argue that these individuals have "become" Christians. However, of the several whom I know personally, they deny "becoming" Christians and explain that they have a fuller, more knowledgeable life as a Jew. The people in the Evangelical group tend to be younger and from an Ashkanazi (European) background, rather than Safardic (Middle Eastern).

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/mess_jud2.htm

    Ella Gibbons
    March 20, 2003 - 09:00 am
    GOLLEE - so much to ponder here, and I have only a few minutes to type, many errands remain.

    GEORGE OR MAHLIA OR ONE OF YOU - I need to know why it is that once a Jew, always a Jew. Mahlia said this - "You cannot "convert" from Judaism; one can take up another religion, but that individual remains a Jew. One can choose to be secular, but remains a Jew. One can have no religious or spiritual faith whatsoever (a non-believer), but remains a Jew.

    If Judaism is a religion, as I think it is, then why cannot a Jew change his religion? We never say you are a Catholic forever, or a Methodist forever, each of them can change to another religion very easily.

    INQUIRING MINDS NEED TO KNOW

    Perhaps I'm very ignorant on this subject, but now is the time for me to learn answers!

    GEORGE stated - "One other point that I just thought of and which may be way off base. Abraham was the father of Ishmael and Isaac; therefore Jews and Muslims can claim lineage to Abraham. But what about Christians? There the link is much more tenuous (in my opinion).

    I need to know why it is (I don't believe Feiler explains this) that the Jews and Muslims claim as their heritage Ismael and Isaac. And I need to know Biblical references to this, in both the Torah, the Christian Bible and the Koran.

    So much more I need to know while we are on this subject.

    Allow me, if you will, to quote a paragraph from Feiler's book (p.156)

    "If you look at history, each religion, at different times, for different reasons, tried to establish itself as the dominant religion. Claiming Abraham for yourself is just one way to establish your authority. This power grab usually occurs at historical turning points.

    For Jews it was after the Second Temple was destroyed and they had to buttress their sagging identity. For Christians it was after the fall of Rome in the fourth and fifth centuries; when they lost their political protection. It's a psychological need triggered by political circumstances.......You want to show that you've always been there. Abraham is a great way to prove that."


    GEORGE - you have mentioned political, social and economic factors that have influenced religious history and religions today. Doesn't the above paragraph answer your question about how Christians relate to Abraham?

    If I ever knew much about religions, history of, present-day circumstances in relation to, I have forgotten it.

    This book has presented questions in my mind that I haven't thought about for many a year. It may not provide answers but the questions are there! For that reason, I am enjoying the book, have enjoyed reading it and discussing it.

    We could, in time, have a discussion of far more depth into religious history, but we would need a year or more to do it by this method. Or maybe 2 or 3?

    Feiler does not claim to be an authority, and it is true that he just reports on his own search for knowledge and has received views of various leaders of each religion; nevertheless I think we have made a stab at understanding.

    georgehd
    March 20, 2003 - 09:35 am
    Hats and others, I would like to clear up a possible misconception. Jesus was born a Jew and practiced Judaism until he died. He was a man of good will who argued against Jewish religious leaders, whom he felt had betrayed their own religion. At the time, he was probably correct. Jews at that time definitely believed in the idea of a messiah and prayed for the day when he would come. Jews were living under Roman rule and as such had lost some of their religious freedom. Like most oppressed peoples, they prayed for a better tomorrow.

    However, Jews in general did not accept that Jesus was the Messiah. After Jesus was crucified by the Romans, the followers of Jesus claimed that he was in fact the messiah that the Jews were waiting for. All of the people who supported Jesus, such as Peter, Paul, Mathew, Mark and Luke were Jews.

    So two groups of Jews formed - Jews who remained Jews and did not accept Jesus as the messiah and Jews who were later called Christians who did accept Jesus as the Messiah. With the passage of time (the later books of the New Testament), the writers became more insistant that all people should accept Jesus and those who did not follow Jesus were no longer in God's favor. Note that Paul did not say this. Jesus was proclaimed by his followers as being the Son of God and therefore between man and God. This is a very important distinction. Jews did not believe (and do not believe now) that there was ever a person between them and God. We still seek God directly and not through any intermediary person.

    Despite what Feiler may want us to believe, the early Christians did not take Abraham away from the Jews. Abraham has always been the first Patriarch. The point is we never prayed to him. We never elevated him to a more God like role. Abraham was just a man who lived and died - but who had a great idea! One God.

    Jesus did not take Abraham away from the Jews - Jesus was a Jew. So Feiler's arguments do not hold water. He glosses over a lot of historical material that does exist concerning the early Christian Church and its relationship to the Jews. It is unfortunate that later writings in the New Testament blamed the death of Jesus on the Jews. These writers needed to convert their fellow Jews and also to convert the ruling Romans.

    I hope that I get some feed back from the above. These are very complicated issues which Feilor chooses to ignore in his quest for simplicity.

    georgehd
    March 20, 2003 - 09:41 am
    Ella, you raise an interesting point about who is a Jew. Anyone born to a Jewish mother is considered a Jew under Jewish law. They do not have to practice Judaism. However, the issue is much more complicated. Orthodox Jews often do not accept reform Jews as real Jews because Reform (and Conservative Jews) do not follow all of the proscribed laws.

    This created a real problem in the state of Israel which accepts all Jews who want to emigrate there. This is the so called "right of return" which all Jews have. Fundamentalist Orthodox rabbis in Israel have argued that reform and Conservative Jews do not have the right of return because they are not really Jews.

    Is a Jew always a Jew? No. Many Jews have converted to Christianity or other religions; they stop practicing Judaism and after a period of time their children are not considered Jewish. Of course Hitler wrote laws about how far back in one lineage you should go to be considered a Jew; as a result many Christians in Europe who had Jewish backgrounds, were considered Jewish and were killed by the Nazis.

    Jews have been considered a race of people by some - they are not a race. You find white Jews, black Jews and even some oriental Jews. Judaism is a religion but a religion with a very strong cultural heritage. There is more to being Jewish than the practice of religion. Many Israelis consider themselves Jews but are secular. This is a hard concept to understand. Jewishness has a lot to do with connectedness with a cultural heritage - connectedness with a people.

    Please understand that I am not an authority on Judaism and I am sure that there are Jews who might not agree with all that I have written. But Feiler, a Jew, does not want to deal with the complexity of history. One of you wrote AHA!!.. I think that is what Feiler said when the idea of Abraham as father of three faiths occurred to him. This was a revelation to Feiler; he just took it too far.

    Persian
    March 20, 2003 - 10:08 am
    ELLA - there is another book which may be helpful to you as a supplement to ABRAHAM. It's entitled "When Religion Becomes Evil," (HarperSanFrancisco, 2002) by the Rev. Dr. Charles Kimball, professor of religion and chair of the dept. of religion at Wake Forest University. Dr. Kimball is an ordained Baptist Minister, who received his Ph.D. from Harvard in comparative religion with a specialization in Islamic Studies. He's an expert analyst on the Middle East and often called upon to lecture about the three religions which we are discussing now. And although Kimball was raised a Christian, he has close Jewish relatives.

    I'm suggesting this book since you mentioned that time is of the essence in this discussion and we certainly do not have an open-ended schedule. Interspersed with information about contemporary issues, there is a tremendous amount of historical background information (with excellent bibliographical resources) which would help you (or any interested reader) get a better feel for the religious customs and cultures of the region.

    I suggested this book some time ago as a possible title for a new Books discussion. It might still serve that purpose after we complete the ABRAHAM text, since by the end of this discussion, I imagine there will be an interest in contiuing to learn about the topic at hand.

    kiwi lady
    March 20, 2003 - 12:23 pm
    George - Your post makes sense to me. The thoughts expressed are those which I have. You are right Jesus practised his religion (Jewish) through his ministry. Wasn't he celebrating Passover with the disciples in many famous paintings. I used to have one of these prints. One year we celebrated Passover at our Christian church - it was extremely moving. Our pastor was trying to show the very important links between Old Testament Practices and the New Testament.

    Carolyn

    BaBi
    March 20, 2003 - 12:24 pm
    Thank you, GEORGE, for refuting Feiler's claim that Jesus "took away" from the Jews their claim to be children of Abraham. I don't know where Feiler got that, but as you say, he is wrong.

    The Christian's claim to Abraham does not lie in a 'direct descent' lineage (unless they have some Jewish or Arab ancestry). The Christians point out that Abraham was accounted righteous by God long before the Law of the Jews was written. Abraham believed in and trusted God, and this was the basis of his 'faith', his 'religion'. Christians are not bound by the Law of the Jews, but are children of God by faith, as Abraham was. In that sense, Abraham is their 'father'.

    I am finding a number of things in Feiler's book that I consider questionable. If it were not for the interesting discussion we are getting out of it, I would have discarded it early on. The three faiths have a common source in Abraham, but that is not the reason for the estrangements, nor is that alone sufficient to heal the estrangements, as some other posters have already stated so well. ...Babi

    Harold Arnold
    March 20, 2003 - 01:23 pm
    I agree with Georghd's comments concerning identifying the cause of the obscurity of many of Feiler's explanations as the brevity of the book. You can't say every thing on so complex a subject in a short 220 pages. Let me ask this question, did Feiler use too many words in his long introductions in each chapter narrating details of an interview with a noted specialist on the subject of the Chapter? I think this was a very effective attention grabbing style to capture the interest of his readers. However, they were long and if shorter perhaps the words saved could have been better used in greater details?

    Thank you Persian for the links to the Islamic history links I have browsed them and have them in my "favorites" list. The reading brings back some of the things we covered in my "Comparative Religious Thought" course so many years ago. I might add that both H.G. Wells in his "Outline of History" and the Durant's in their "Story of Civilization" volumes cover the early history of both faiths very well.

    Persian, I'm not following your argument concerning the role of ethnicity in establishing ones identity as a Jew. I have no known Jewish ancestors. Suppose I converted to Judaism. Would this make me a Jew? My interpretation is that it would not change my ethnicity but would change my religious affiliation to Judaism. Is not the Catholic cleric who is an ethnic Jew still an ethnic Jew, but in religion a Catholic Christian? I guess what I am saying is that ethnicity and religion are two different things and in this case a single word is used to describe both. The modifier is really necessary!

    My interpretation of the Christian link to Abraham, is through Isaac, The difference between the Christian and Jewish interpretation is how the Christian's took the Jewish base and adapted it for their own purpose. I will say more on this later this afternoon.

    Persian
    March 20, 2003 - 02:53 pm
    GEORGE - re the Catholic cleric - yes, the modifier is necessary. As I stated earlier, that's why he refers to himself as "a Jew who claims Catholicism as my religion."

    The discussions (often arguments) about ethnicity and/or religion in Jewish communities have been ongoing for eons. The "legitimacy" of one's claim to Judaism (born of a Jewish mother, as George stated) can be accepted or refuted, depending upon who is making the decision. (Was the mother "really" Jewish?)

    And there are often politics involved. After the 1979-80 revolution in Iran, many Iranian Jews (especially children and youth) were sent to the USA for protection against the atrocities of Khomeini's thugs. Many traveled under the auspices of the Lubavitch community in New York. However, there was much dissention about whether the Iranians were "really" Jews or not, thus laying claim to whether they should be offered asylum by American Jewish families. In some cases, the arguments got really nasty. But the American families, being AMERICAN (and Reform or Conservative) prevailed and the children and youth were readily accepted into the families. I worked with large groups of these kids and the foster families; taught a citizenship class at our local JCC; and served as liaison with INS for some of the older youth.

    At the same time, large numbers of Russian Jews were also immigrating to the USA, but they did not have the same questionable reception the Iranians did. I often wondered why and finally asked one of the JCC officials. His response was disgusting: "the Rusisans were European and thus a known quantity. The Persians, coming from the Middle East, were a different matter altogether. Were they "really" Jews? Who could tell?" These were children - the youngest ones I worked with were twins, aged 4. Yet so much prejudice and ignorance.

    Harold Arnold
    March 21, 2003 - 10:05 am
    Today let us conclude the discussion of the Christian interpretation of Abraham (Chapter 6) with further comment on the Christian vision of Abraham. Then tomorrow and Sunday we can proceed to consider the Muslin interpretation discussed in Chapter 7. This will lead us to the 2 short concluding chapters beginning Monday and the conclusion of the discussion as scheduled at the end of next week. Ella will be back from a family trip to NY on Thursday to lead us in the final close.

    For today, what are your thoughts on the evolution of the Christian interpretation of Abraham, from Jesus, to St Paul, to the authors of the 4-Gospels (Mathew Mark, Luke, & John), to the Later Christian interpreters- Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Eusebius, and St Augustine? How did the historical Christian interpretation make Jesus pre-existant to a now Christian Abraham and in effect deny the Jews their heritage? Were there 20th century (Vatican II) revisions in the Christian view (not mentioned by Feiler in Chapter 6) materially changing, or at least mitigating the historical Christian interpretation?

    Ann Alden
    March 21, 2003 - 01:07 pm
    Here are two comparisons of the three faiths: Three faiths

    And this one: Essay comparison

    I found these yesterday but have been distracted by life and didn't get them in here.

    Persian, thanks for the links. They are most helpful.

    George, I appreciate your explanations very much. We never stop learning, do we?

    Harold, I don't know if making those entries to each subject shorter, or making the whole book longer, might have made it work better.

    I definitely agree that there are many other problems between the three religions having to do with ethnicity, home countries, old hurts and old wars. Wouldn't it be great if the problems could be solved as easily as Feilor suggests?

    Persian
    March 21, 2003 - 03:40 pm
    ANN - may I caution about the discrimination evident in the opening sentences of the Essay link you posted. The description of the Black Muslims is a reference to the Ha'nafi sect (primarily black Americans who converted to Islam)who, over the years have had good/bad relations with members of The Nation of Islam, as well as being ridiculed and rejected by the orthodox Sunni (particularly the Saudis). Given the numerous typos, I'd also qeustion the professional authenticity of the essay, especially since there is no author's name included in the work. There is just enough legitimacy in the piece to offer the general reader some interesting info. about Islam and a plea that all the People of the Book should better understand each other. That's already a given.

    BaBi
    March 21, 2003 - 04:00 pm
    Harold, you lost me. When did we turn Abraham into a Christian? He was the ancestor of a people who became known as Hebrews (thru' Isaac) and Arabs (thru Ishmael). We can't even really call him a Hebrew, much less a Christian. And this certainly doesn't deny the Jewish people their Abrahamic origins.

    Christians interpret the scripture that "all nations will be blessed" through Abraham to include the Messiah/Christ to come. Jesus is also seen as pre-existent as "the Word, and the Word was with God"; the spiritual entity which "was made flesh". In this sense he is seen as pre-existent to all creation.

    The name "Jew", of course, arises from Judah. As best I understand it,when 10 of the original tribes were dispersed and lost, and the small tribe of Benjamin was absorbed into Judah, the people began to be known as Jews more than as Hebrews. When Israel seized to exist as a nation nearly 2000 years ago, the Jews retained their identity as a people through their religion. The religion, Judaism, incorporates in it's name the tribal origins of the people. Thus, it becomes very difficult to separate the two. I suppose when the question is asked, "Is he/she really a Jew?", it means are they Jewish by heritage.

    These are my perceptions on the matter, and I am open to correction. ...Babi

    Persian
    March 21, 2003 - 04:39 pm
    BABI - very good points! And we must also remember that Abraham "existed" before God spoke to him (if we believe scriptures); before he was told to leave his birthplace in Southern Iraq (near the current city of Nasiriyah). He wasn't just "claimed" by the Jews and Christians.

    georgehd
    March 21, 2003 - 04:55 pm
    One thing I find very interesting if it is true as I am reading the texts (not Feiler). There is much more similarity between Judaism and Islam, in their religious beliefs, than between Judaism and Christianity.

    I searched for Vatican II on line and found the text of the entire document. I wonder how the more liberal American Catholic movement views this document. One church doctrine that I find disturbing is the idea of spreading the Gospel. The obligation to do missionary work means that one has to assume that my religious belief is better than your religious belief.

    I will probably not say much more about our book Abraham as I do find it rather shallow. However, I am finding the links provided by others in the group most interesting. Thanks Mahalia and BaBi.

    Persian
    March 21, 2003 - 07:30 pm
    GEORGE - Indeed, your comment - "The obligation to do missionary work means that one has to assume that my religious belief is better than your religious belief" - is one of the major issues that is often discussed in Islamic circles. If we are ALL the children of God, say Muslims, why then should one's belief structure (or method of belief) be better than another's? Surely God has enlightened all of His children; given us tongues to speak (although in many languages); the ability to think and reason; and hearts to encourage compassion and understanding. Why should one be forced or made to feel shame because of the "difference" in believing/worshiping God?

    And this applies to those in the radical terrorist-oriented sects of Islam. They do NOT speak for all Muslims, although through their constant presence in the global press, one would think they do. Many, many Muslims are absolutely heart-broken that there is not a better understanding of Islam and the respect that many Muslims have for those of Jewish and Christian backgrounds. Despite the current attacks going on in Iraq and the anti-American rhetoric, there are plenty of Muslims who indeed have worked really hard (and taught their children to do likewise)to bring about a better understanding.

    I, too, have appreciated your astute comments and your sincerity and willingness to share those comments with us.

    Harold Arnold
    March 21, 2003 - 09:46 pm
    I am inclined to agree for the most part at any rate with the comments of Gorghd and Persian toward interfaith missionary work. I like the way Persian said it, "If we are ALL the children of God, say Muslims, why then should one's belief structure (or method of belief) be better than another's?" I suppose a limited missionary stance to let the apostate, agnostics, and atheists know the faith is there for them should be expected.

    Ann I too think the book would have been better with another 150 pages to provide more detail. I really think the chapter introductions through the interviews were effective in building reader interest. For one, I really like the Orthodox Bishop of Jerusalem Wasn't he a fascinating character?

    BaBi," When did we turn Abraham into a Christian?" Isn't this the conclusion of Feiler's argument presented in Chapter 6? Granted that don't make it the only interpretation, but as I see Feilers presentation, that is certainly refutable, he traces the development of the Christian position first from the ministry or Christ who as he said lived and died a Jew. His early followers were Jews who saw Jesus as a reformer, not the founder of another church. Next Feiler notes Paul, who was also a Jew, opened the new church to non-Jews. As Feiler says, "Paul does not blame the Jews for Jesus' death or say God founded the church as a wrath against this people," but he continues to note, "he (Paul) does vacillate, when he says in "Romans" 11 that "some Jews will be broken off the holy tree of life and the Gentiles, a wild Olive shoot" will be grafted in their place."

    Next Feisler considers the interpretation of the authors of the four gospels. Here the genealogy of Christ is traced back to Abraham. I remember 28 generations separating the Patriarch from Christ. On P-151 Feiler outlines his argument from the Gospel "John" leading to his conclusion that "Jesus no longer supersedes (followed) Abraham; he precedes him. Jesus is not the seed of Abraham, Abraham is the seed of Christ." I grant this is certainly one of the places where much additional detail is necessary to adequately support the argument and as you see I am ill prepared for argument on this subject..

    From "John," Feiler continues explaining the Christian interpretation of Abraham by early 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century Christian theologians, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Eusebius, and St Augustine. These Church fathers continue the development of the thread of "John" that Jesus preceded Abraham meaning that Abraham was himself actually Christian (PP 152 – 154). Feiler's point is that these Christian interpreters "took a biblical figure open to all (Abraham), tossed out what they wanted to ignore, ginned up what they wanted to stress, and ended up with a symbol for their own uniqueness that looked for more like a mirror image of their own fantasies than a reflection of the original story."

    It was on this argument that the Christian church long held the Jews responsible for the death of Christ. I understand that this principal was changed by one of the Vatican Councils in the 1960's or 70's. I think it was Vatican II and this is what I was referring to by the reference in my previous post. I am particularly critical of Feiler's failure to mention this late attempt at ecumenical conciliation and again we have here a good example of the difficulty in writing this story in a short form in popular language.

    Hats
    March 21, 2003 - 10:47 pm
    George, I agree. "Spreading the Gospel" does seem to hint that one religious sect is more superior than another. I become very uptight if someone asks "are you saved?" If the conversation continues, it always comes down to the fact that I am not "saved" unless a choice is made. In other words, I must choose THEIR particular religion and go to THEIR church, or I am bound straight for hell. Evangelizing makes me a little bit uncomfortable.

    Ann Alden
    March 22, 2003 - 06:21 am
    Persian, thanks for the heads up on that article which I hadn't not thoroughly perused earlier. I do see what you are talking about.

    Proseltising? Evangelizing? All the same! If only these people who feel so inclined to "save" me would first ask if I have a church? or a belief? of my own. And look at our poor Mormons or that other religion where the children(18 and up) must give a year or two of their lives to proselitising in unfamililiar cities around the world. Not my cup of tea!

    My reaction to all of this is that it appears to me that religion has "invented" by mankind and I will always question it.

    Yes, the Catholic Church did try some fence mending in the '60's or even later, and it probably helped with the relations between Judaism and Chatholoism.

    When I went to Friday temple here in town, I was amazed at the ceremonies since they were so similar to the Christian ceremonies in their churches.

    Back later, its breakfast time!

    Ann Alden
    March 22, 2003 - 09:05 am
    I see from above that I should be using Spellcheck! Anyway, it has always been my understanding that Jesus was perceived as part of the Divine nature or person of God. And, therefore, if God told Abraham, "Before you were, I am" and we consider Jesus the son of God or the 2nd person of the Trinity(the 3rd being the Holy Ghost/Spirit) then Jesus existed before Abraham. If one believes in this triune God, then one could assume that Jesus was there before Abraham and therefore, Abraham was-------?????what? Since there was no such thing as a Jew back then or a Christian, I have always assumed that Abraham was a nomad, wandering the desert, in search of a place to reside, a place to call home and also, searching(spiritually) for his monotheistic god.

    After the Israelites were freed from slavery in Egypt, is that when they began to be referred to as Israelites?

    Yes, Harold, I, too, liked the bishop of Jerusalem. I actually like what he gleaned from most of the people he places in this book.

    Another quote from Feilor which has me confused: .....But over time, just as Jews tried to claim Abraham uniquely, Christians attempted to commandeer Abraham for themselves.

    I really don't remember being taught that anyone owned Abraham directly.

    BaBi
    March 22, 2003 - 09:10 am
    George, one thing has become very evident to me in reading about these early and medieval "interpreters" and theologians (and it is quite likely true of today's theologians). They all, Jewish and Christian alike, are quite ready to change 'interpretations' to suit whatever they see as the needs of the times or the needs of their own group. I would suppose that must apply to Muslim 'interpreters' as well.

    Ann touched on something very important, I think, when she said that religion was invented by mankind. Faith and belief are personal to each person; religion is the system created by men to allow persons of like faith to gather, worship, teach/learn, etc. And any institution created by men is going to tend to self-preservation and self-promotion.

    As it happened, I moved about so much as a youngster that I did not attend any church regularly or learn much about church doctrines. I did read the Bible with enjoyment and fascination. In other words, I learned what the Bible said long before anyone started telling me what they thought it meant. It has made it easier for me to distinguish between what is scripture and what is the 'traditions of men'. A number of doctrines, I must say, were the victors in heated controversies where politics played a heavy part. Needless to say, I am much less likely to make any strong claims for them. ...Babi

    Persian
    March 22, 2003 - 09:13 am
    I've had some really good conversations with Mormon youth as they've visited our neighborhood over the past few years. Indeed, they are doing their "mission work." but once we established a line of communication about God - not just the Mormon faith - then these young folks were interesting to talk to. Naieve, but interesting. I also admire the young people who take it upon themselves (or are encouraged to do so by their families and congregations)to interact with their counterparts of other ethnic and religious backgrounds. The more they/we learn about each other, the better off our world will be.

    HATS - I have a great response when someone asks "are you saved." It's quite simple: "You betcha, since God promised that I have a personal relationship with him! Nothing you can do for me that God has not already done, but thanks anyway." Understanding that that "relationsip" doesn't have to be public or flamboyant is the key. When my son was ordained as a Baptist minister, he asked me to speak at his ordination ceremony. I managed to weave aspects of Islam and Judaism into my comments, along with pride in my son's accomplishments. I overheard one woman in the front row say to a neighbor, "Well, I never . . . .!" But there are quite legitimate ways to "include" God's promises to ALL his children without force. And whether you develop your faith publicly or privately is entirely your business. God's loves you regardless!

    Harold Arnold
    March 22, 2003 - 10:55 am
    Question for Persian and our Jewish Participants: In your mind is the Christian concept of the "Trinity," the Godhead figure composed of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, consistent with monotheisms?

    I remember particularly from the H.G. Wells "Outline of History" that the introduction of this concept came out of an early schism that in the early centuries of the Church divided it in a bitter struggle. It was officially established as church doctrine by the 4th century Council of Nicaea, which produced the Nicene Creed followed today by Orthodox, Roman Catholic and most Protestant Christian Churches.

    Here are two links concerning the meaning and history of the Trinity: The Trinity

    Or if you have time to read 44 pages The Trinity In Historic Christianity

    Harold Arnold
    March 22, 2003 - 11:13 am
    Yes everyone isn't the main point of Feiler, repeated at several points through out the book and particularly in Chapters 5, 6, and 7, that IN EACH CASE THE THREE FATH INTERPRETED THE CHARACTER AND MESSAGE OF ABRAHAM TO SERVE ITS OWN PURPOSE? In Chapter 6 on the Christians he judges the Christians as being particularly creative in connecting Jesus and Abraham and in arguing Jesus as preexistent to Abraham effectively making him a Christian and disinheriting the Jews as the crucifiers of Christ.

    During my years in the Methodist Church as I said earlier my main remembrance of Abraham was a Sunday school when I was about eight years old. I like most Christians who are not theologians have remained quite ignorant and unaware of the implications inherent from the interpretations of our early church fathers. The criticism due Feiler on this point is not for his telling us how each faith interpreted Abraham to serve their own agendas, but in his not providing us insufficient detail for full understanding of the concept and his failure to mention (in Chapter 6) recent attempts to correct the unfavorable implications. Today I think the Roman Catholics have exonerated the Jews officially, and I can't see a Methodist or the other liberal Protestant theologian arguing in favor of the old view.

    Let us now move on the Chapter 7, to discuss how the Muslins proclaimed their connection to the Patriarch.

    Ann Alden
    March 22, 2003 - 11:47 am
    Before we start on Islam, I have to say that I also have had quite a few conversations with the Mormon youth, even invited two of them to one of our ecumenical picnics here in town and found them very sweet and pleasant but locked into their way of thinking. Which is fine as long as they don't try changing another person's beliefs. And,IMO, that is also a result of their ages when they begin their missionary work. So young! But that seems to be where the enthusiasm begins, for them.

    Persian
    March 22, 2003 - 03:36 pm
    As this discussion approaches the Islam section, here's a link from The Washington Post's Religion section, which sheds light on the differences between Sunni and Shite Muslims.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2731-2003Mar21.html

    HAROLD - as for your question about the Trinity, I can only respond as earlier: from an Islamic standpoint, there is not only no need for a Trinity in one's belief in God, it is preposterous (to Muslims) to believe that GOD, all powerful, loving and forgiving, would try to punish his children generation to generation for "original sin;" confuse them by appearing in human form as Jesus, a Jewish prophet, who lived his life as a Jew, yet on his death asked God (his presumed all-loving Father), why he had been "forsaken"; and/or present himself as His own son, who would ultimately "sit at the right hand of the Father in Paradise." In Islam "forsaking" a son is almost unheard of - which is why there was such an uproar (and continues to be),when it became a media topic around the world that the bin Laden family of Saudi Arabia ostracized one of their sons,Osama.

    Further, Muslims wonder why there is a "need" in Christianity for other than God. Direct, 24/7, personal: no need for intercedents (priests or saints).

    Harold Arnold
    March 22, 2003 - 06:08 pm
    In Chapter 7 Feiler notes that Islam like the Jews and Christian developed their own Midrash of Abraham. Starting from the same point as the earlier religions, Muhammad and his successors followed the same pattern adapting Abraham for their purpose and making him their own. Prior to Chapter 7, Feiler had already told how Muslims had connected their descent from Abraham through Ishmael rather than Isaac and had made Ishmael the subject of the binding instead of Isaac. Under the Muslin interpretation of Abraham, he became a particularly important figure to Islam as a symbol for true submission to god. Abraham too is made pre existent to Abraham and he himself pursuant to God's specific command is said to be the builder of the Ka'ba in Mecca. And again pursuant to a command delivered by the Angel Gabriel Muhammad on a night journey met and prayed with Abraham, Moses, and Jesus after which a latter appeared on which Muhammad ascended into heaven. Muhammad had noted how much the appearance of Abraham resembled his own. Feisler remarked, "the link between them is not just spiritual, or even ancestral, it's physical?"

    I think the great importance of Chapter 7 comes in its concluding section where Feiler contrasts the impact of Abraham to the World from the differencing opinion to two Muslim clerics. Both have reputations as firebrands. From one the message offers no hope for reconciliation through the common link to Abraham short of submission by Jews and Christians. The second Cleric offers the hope of reconciliation through the common Patriarch. I view these interview as the beginning of Feiler's conclusion and suggest we save our discussion on this until Monday as we begin our final summation of the impact of the book.

    Harold Arnold
    March 23, 2003 - 09:10 am
    Thank you Persian for your comment on the Islamic view on the Christian idea of the Trinity. I ask the question because I too have found the need for it hard to understand, though on countless occasions I have swore my allegiance to it. I suppose the Church Fathers found it necessary in order to define a place for Jesus at the top of the eternal organization chart.

    The concept divided God into three parts- father, Son and Holy Ghost. Together the three remained one God, so it was believed the monotheist structure remained intact.

    This afternoon will be my work day at the ITC so I will be out of pocket until this evening. Please continue to post your comments and questions on the Islamic interpretation of Abraham.

    Ann Alden
    March 23, 2003 - 01:22 pm
    Never having heard a justification of having a Trinity God, I truly wonder at the need for such a thing and where it came from. Nothing is simple.

    My eyes are spinning from rereading the chapter about Islam and the Post article about the Shi'ites. I have another question concerning all that. Where did the Ba'ath party come from? Is is the civilian party that is behind Hussein? But they are Sunnis, right?

    Back later. Recovering from a sleep over by our 5 yr old granddaughter.

    BaBi
    March 23, 2003 - 01:57 pm
    So many points/questions raised in both Mahlia's and Harold's posts. I would like to respond to just one that I think may be more easily clarified.

    When Jesus, on the cross, cried out "My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?", he was quoting the first line of Psalm 22. I see this as quite purposeful, even in his extremity. This Psalm contains some highly relevant verses. v.7-8: "All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake head, saying, 'He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him." v. 14-19: "I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me; they pierced my hands and feet.. I may tell all my bones; they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. But be not thou far from me, O Lord; O my strength, haste thee to help me." v.27 "All the ends of the world shall remember and turn into the Lord; and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee." v. 31: "They shal come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this."

    I don't believe these last words were words of despair, but a last testimony and reminder. ...Babi

    Harold Arnold
    March 23, 2003 - 05:15 pm
    Ann the Ba'ath Party is a multi-national secular, socialist Political Party formed for the purpose of promoting pan-Arab political unity. I think a key word in the above short definition in connection with the present conflict is "Secular." The Allies do walk on their eyeballs in intervening in Iraq since the alternate to Saddam might be an extremist, very non-secular Ayatollah. A Google search on the string "Ba'ath Party yields many hits. Here as a short one page comment.Click Here.

    Thank you BaBi, for your explanation of the perplexing cry from the cross. I had not heard it before but I see how coming from the Psalm, it can be interpreted as you say, a "last testimony and reminder," rather than despair as it might seem.

    Ann Alden
    March 24, 2003 - 09:14 am
    Babi, weren't the Psalms written before the birth of Jesus? By Solomon? Maybe they were a prediction to what would happen to Christ on the cross? Here's a link: Psalms History

    Could Christ have been quoting the Psalms but using them as an example of his misery? And, salvation?Or again, as a fullfillment of a prediction?

    Harold, I can't seem to get that link to work. Maybe the net is too busy this morning. I tried a google and had the same problem. Will try later!

    In reading this chapter about the Muslims, I find it a simple faith to understand and like, but then we get to the man-made rules! The Five Pillars of Faith? Just a bit much for me but that's okay as everyone to his own likes and dislikes. Our journeys are our own.

    That two imams partially disagree doesn't surprise me, as to how the beliefs are supposed to affect a person. One is pro-force and the other is peace inclined. Isn't it a shame when one religion feels that it must push itself onto others who don't believe the way it does. Remember Hawaii? And, the American Indians? All in the name of religion! I am not educated on the Ottoman Empire but am a small product of it as the Moors invaded two of my forbearers home countries. Portugal and Ireland! At least, that's what I have been told. Another google coming up!

    BaBi
    March 24, 2003 - 10:58 am
    Hi, Ann. Most of the Psalms are attributed to David, Israel's "sweet singer". Others were written by the Temple musicians,ie., the "sons of Korah", or Korahites. Many of the Psalms are considered to be prophetic, and Psalm 22 is definitely one of them.

    I was baffled enough by Feiler's statement that the story of Abraham was written after the destruction of the Temple and the dispersion. If the Jewish people had the law of Moses before that time, how could they not have had the story of Abraham? It's right there in the first book..Genesis. Now we are into the Islamic stories of Abraham, many of which are news to readers of the Jewish and Christian bibles. The only points on which all seem to agree are that there was an Abraham who believed in one God only, that he trusted and obeyed his God, that he had two sons, who were the progenitors of the Hebrew and Arab peoples. After that, it's up in the air, and God only knows! ...Babi

    Harold Arnold
    March 24, 2003 - 11:24 am
    Ann, the link worked for me yesterday and again this morning. Here is the URL; http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0805601.html

    I suggest, from your browser, you copy it as given above and paste it in your browser (click file/open/paste (right Mouse button)/ok. I agree Internet conditions or your server's conditions might have caused the link problem.

    BaBi as I understood Feiler from the earlier chapters he said that by the time of the Kings, David and Solomon most Jews had forgotten Abrham. That would have been about 800 BCE and after Moses, but the stories were still know to a few clerics. This was the time of the first temple the heights of Jewish power as a nation. A few centuries later after the decline and fall the Abraham midrash began the reinterpretation that continued and even accelerated after the destruction of the 2nd temple in 64 CE. This was the time of the beginning of Christianity and Feiler remarked that much of the Jewish interpretation and development continued contemporary with the Christian interpretation Feiler even adds that Jewish interpretation in some cases was even influenced by the Christian. Perhaps one of you more familiar than I with the Jewish view would elaborate further on this?

    Harold Arnold
    March 24, 2003 - 11:55 am
    I think we are almost ready to go on to the conclusion but first what do you think of the contrasting views of Abraham as an interfaith unifying force coming out or the interviews with Mosoud El Fassed and Sheikh Abu Sneina (PP 178 - 185)? These Muslim clerics are both judged firebrands by Feiler. Do you see substantive contrast between the two Clerics? Would the unity offered by Sheikh Abu be more analogous to the 1980's cold war détente than a true multi-culture acceptance?

    And what did the 2nd cleric mean when he said, "But even if Jews and Christians just followed what is mentioned about Abraham in the Bible, then we can reach Unity" (Just what must Christians and Jews change)?

    Ann Alden
    March 24, 2003 - 01:19 pm
    Babi, yes I know that David wrote many of the psalms but what about the "Song of Solomon"? In my research, I found 8 names used as the authors of the psalms. Included were Solomon and David and Ezekial, etc. Anyway, just a point here, what I was trying to understand are the words of Christ as he died. Was he repeating them from the psalms? Was he pointing out to believers that the words had been fulfilled?

    Harold, I was finally able to open that link. Thanks, it gave a good explanation of the party.

    Harold, as I said above, I am not surprised that the two men disagree somewhat. One for a peaceful resolution, the other, more sure that Islam is THE ONE FAITH. And, I believe they both believe that they are supposed to invite all non-believers to submit to God and become members of Islam. But, as one says, its okay if the non-believers don't become members as long as they live peacefully and continue with their own beliefs. Didn't one of them say that if Feilor continued to practice within the Jewish faith, he would die. And, he went on to say that both the Bible and theTorah promise this end. To say the least, I am slightly confused here. Its okay if we don't believe in Islam but we will die if we don't? What?

    BaBi
    March 25, 2003 - 12:02 pm
    Of course, we can't know for certain what Jesus had in mind when he uttered those opening lines of Psalm 22, but my own personal belief is that he was drawing the attention of the Jews within hearing to that Psalm. Many were there to taunt him, of course. If they recalled the words of that psalm, and then looked at what was happening right in front of them.... Well, it would make me shut up and wonder if maybe I had made a mistake here.

    Harold, I am forced to consider that if the idea that we all serve the one God is not enough to stop our hostility, it is hardly reasonable to suppose the common bond of Abraham would do it. ...Babi

    LouiseJEvans
    March 25, 2003 - 03:08 pm
    There are many prophecies throughout the Hebrew Scriptures pointing to Jesus Christ. He knew these Scriptures and did quote from them especially from Isaiah where so many of the prophecies are. I believe someone mentioned a few posts back that Jesus did celebrate the Passover. He was a Jew but also the promised Messiah. Abraham and also David were among his ancestors.

    georgehd
    March 25, 2003 - 04:31 pm
    We seem to have abandoned Feifer's book and are now introducing a lot of material that we find on the internet or material that is part of our individual belief system.

    Just to clarify for Louise, there are no prophesies in the Hebrew Bible that point to Jesus Christ. During extremely difficult political times, the prophets wanted a sign from God to prove to the ruling King that God was Yaweh, the Israelite God, the one true God. Many Israelites including the King were beginning to doubt in their God. The sign chosen by Isaiah was the birth of a son. It should be pointed out that the King did not accept this sign. And the Israelites did not accept this sign.

    Times got even worse for the Israelites and eventually they were conquered and the Temple destroyed. Throughout this period of extreme hardship, the prophets tried to exhort the people to believe in the one true God. But this was difficult for the people to understand, because if God was on their side and if God had choosen the Israelites to be messengers of God, Why were they being defeated and destroyed by stronger nations that surrounded them.

    Jesus does not appear as the Messiah until the writing of the New Testament and the preaching of the gospels by the followers of Jesus. Most people in the world today do not accept the idea that Jesus was the Messiah. However, this is a basic tenet of the Christian faith.

    The term Messiah (Hebrew:machiah Greek:Chistos) litterally means anointed and reflects the ancient practice of anointing and thereby consecrating a person for an exalted office such as a prophet or king. In the Hebrew Bible the term mashiah usually refers to the reigning king, regarded as God's representative on earth. Later in other literature (not the Old Testament) the term took on the meaning of an ideal king or deliverer (Messiah) who would come and establish God's kingdom on earth. When this literature was translated into Greek we have the introduction of the word "Christos".

    What I am finding most interesting about all of this, is the extended period of time during which battles took place in this area of the world. The ebb and flow of various conquests influenced the religious leaders of the day and also influenced the ability of the people to accept the belief in one God.

    It would seem that these battles continue even today.

    Persian
    March 25, 2003 - 06:01 pm
    Louise - I'd be interested in a couple of specific references to support your post that "there are many prophecies in Hebrew Scriptures pointing to Jesus Christ."

    George - very incisive comments.

    kiwi lady
    March 25, 2003 - 07:49 pm
    Is the book of Isaiah in the Hebrew scriptures ie the Jewish holy book? There is pretty specific scriptures in Isaiah.

    Carolyn

    kiwi lady
    March 25, 2003 - 07:52 pm
    After reading this book we can never be joined together in the religious sense, the three religions have too many differences but we must live in peace together. This is my wish.

    Carolyn

    GingerWright
    March 25, 2003 - 08:37 pm
    I LOVE GOD AND HE LOVES ME, THIS I KNOW AS HE LETS ME KNOW THAT HIS SPIRIT IS WITH ME AND ALL HIS MANY,MANY PEOPLE SUCH AS ABRAHAM.

    Have we Forgoten that GOD is a Spirit and created this World? I know that God loves us All But We are on differnt paths to God that has created the World and All of us. prayer is the answer. Love All of You, Ginger

    Harold Arnold
    March 25, 2003 - 10:00 pm
    I agree with georgehd's comment regarding the direction this discussion has taken today away from the conclusion of the book. Our concluding issue is not comment supporting or condemning the position of any particular faith. It is what is necessary for each of the three faiths for the descendents of Abraham to live together in respectful and peaceful co-existence?

    Feiler cites a respected American Christian theologian; Walter Brueggemann (PP-201. 202) who thinks each faith must recognize that each religion is an interpretative venture. Each faith must recognize that its particular confiscation of the ancient tradition (its particular interpretation of Abraham) is not the only possible legitimate way. Each faith must respect the interpretation of the others. I interpret this to mean that each faith must give up its exclusive claim to being one and only true and correct faith.

    The problem is that Jews worry that the relaxing of prohibitions against inter-faith contacts will diminish further their already small minority. Christians fear that by recognizing truths in other religions they will undermine their unique relationship between God and Jesus. And Muslins fear that by recognizing the teachings of other prophets, they will lessen the importance of Muhammad. Brueggemann estimates that 2/3 of the Jews, 1⁄2 of the Christians, and 1/3 of the Muslins would agree to the principal of spiritual parity among all religions. I can't imagine how he arrived at these numbers and really wonder if they can be this high in any case?

    What are your thoughts on this matter? Can you accept and respect the fact that the position that your faith is not the only one, and that in fact two others also fabricated by other human beings from the same ancient source also exists?

    Ann Alden
    March 26, 2003 - 06:37 am
    Harold, the idea of parity among the different faiths who claim Abraham as their founder is the ideal and probably the wish of most thinking people. But, IMHO, the numbers quoted here seem to be a bit high. If we could just not be petty about others beliefs and also, not triumphal of our own, whatever they may be. This is not a contest and we are not children competing in a game. Again, it seems to me that we all have a path to walk and we all should have a free choice of which path we choose to take.

    IMO, the different religious beliefs accomplish the destruction of the Tower of Babel. Even if we all spoke the same language, we would not be thinking the same thoughts.

    Ann Alden
    March 26, 2003 - 07:23 am
    In the book, Sheikh Abdul Rauf, a native Kuwaiti who now heads a mosque in NYC, is quoted as saying that most Muslims have yet to experience the economic opportunity or sufficient education to be able to understand, much less implement, the ideals of pluralism and coexistence. He feels and says that American Muslims must redefine Islam to include saparation of church and state, as well as human rights.

    IMHO, at one time in the world's history, the Moors( who were believers of Islam) peacefully occupied countries, not trying to force their faith on the natives. And, they improved the places that they occupied. Here is a pretty good link to a historical writing of the occupation of Iberia(Spain and Portugal) by the Moors. Moorish Occupation

    I realize that these were peaceful invasions but after they had established themselves, they seem to have improved the country.

    Persian
    March 26, 2003 - 08:42 am
    HAROLD - With due respect to you, may I argue that your following comment ("And Muslins fear that by recognizing the teachings of other prophets, they will lessen the importance of Muhammad.) distorts the importance and respect which Islam teaches towards prophets other than Muhamed.

    From the time they are children old enough to read and write and listen coherently, Muslim children learn of the blessings God convened on ALL the prophets. The Prophet Muhamed is believed by Muslims to be the "last" Prophet; the individual whom God chose to bring his "capstone" efforts to his people. Certainly within some sects and individual interpretations within Islam (just like within Christianity and Judaism), the levels of respect and importance of the earlier prophets may be relegated to different levels.

    I wonder why it seems so difficult to understand and then accept that other people have a different interpretation of religion, faith and the manner in which they follow God's teaching. Coming from a multicultural and multireligious background, I've always been surrounded by "differences." Should "mainline" Christians look with disrespect on the Mormons, Moravians, Amish or Quakers? Of course not! Should orthodox Jews absolutely refuse to accept the Conservative, Reform or Messianic strains within Judaism? Of course not. Should individuals who speak only English (and there are millions in this category in the USA) refuse to respect those who are multilingual. Of course not!

    IMO, access to economic security and educational benefits plays a much more substantial role in preparing the Islamic community for full participation in "the ideals of pluralism and coexistence" than religion. Placed in another religious/ethnic setting, think of the tremendously poor and uneducated Mexicans in the Southwest who are Catholics, but have little in common with their better educated and financially secure neighbors in more well-to-do Catholic parishes. In this very competitive and high tech world, sharing a religion (or denomination) is NOT the only way to co-exist peacefully.

    Harold Arnold
    March 26, 2003 - 10:16 am
    Ann, too I think the comment of Sheikh Abdul Rauf again quoted from your post #407 are significant:
    In the book, Sheikh Abdul Rauf, a native Kuwaiti who now heads a mosque in NYC, is quoted as saying that most Muslims have yet to experience the economic opportunity or sufficient education to be able to understand, much less implement, the ideals of pluralism and coexistence. He feels and says that American Muslims must redefine Islam to include separation of church and state, as well as human rights.


    To some the mindset of much of the Islamic world is about comparable to the 14th – 15th Christian mindset. I am sure that there are many writings of late 15th century Christian Church leaders every bit as uncompromising as the comment of Masoud El Fassed in his interview in the Feiler book. Christianity too went through a comparable period. The test came with the religious wars of the 16th through much of the 18th centuries during which both Catholic and reformers routinely tortured dissenters they termed heretics. It was during this period the English practice of attaching a bag of gunpowder around the neck of the victim being burned at the stake was offered as an example of mercy. This did not end until the late 18th Century referred to by historians as "The Age of Reason"

    I do not doubt that material improvements in general education within the Islamic world and most important if accompanied by improvements in living standards will effect similar changes in the Islamic world. The question is do we have time? Since change today seem to come much faster than 500 years ago, three centuries will not be required, but we are on a short fuse that is already burning. The final question is do Christians and Jews have the will to facility the Muslim's achievement of these goals?

    And Ann or anyone, I am a bit dense, What is the exact meaning of the abbreviations, "IMO" and "IMHO"?

    Harold Arnold
    March 26, 2003 - 10:19 am
    Persian, thank you for your comment on my post #405. I must confess I have great trouble in understanding the ideal of such complete submission even to the will of God that appears to be such a prominent requirement in Islam. Granted in the end we are all gods' subjects, but the overwhelming importance placed on this concept seems to provide the opportunity for human figures quite junior to God to determine for God, the role required of individuals (like being a suicide bomber). But of course this is the end result of the current education and social conditions of the masses.

    Do you think (as does Feiler) that American Islamic leaders can assert an influence on the shape of World Islamic attitudes? I remember at least one now in Federal Prison whose mindset was at least equally extreme to that of Masoud El Fassed, interviewed by Feiler.

    And is the title "Sheikh" a clerical title? In the distant past I took it more to be a civil title denoting a Bedouin civil leadership position, roughly equivalent to an Amerindian Chief?

    Persian
    March 26, 2003 - 01:30 pm
    HAROLD - there are NO clerics in Islam. Individuals well versed in the Holy Qur'an often provide a sermon at the mid-day Friday prayers, but they are not thought of as clerics (in the Christian sense). Those who are spiritual leaders in a congregation (like the Sheik mentioned by Feiler) are just that: leaders in the congregation, respected men who are schooled in the Qur'an and can articulate its message to the congregants. The word "Sheik" is a title of respect and indicates someone learned in the Qur'an. On the other hand a "Muktar" might be a village elder, someone who has gained respect for his secular knowledge. The old term "Caliph" was much more in use in Ottoman times and, earlier, following the death of the Prophet Mohamed. "Vizier" or "Grand Vizier" was a secular individual, surrounded by advisers, who generally was the head of a regional area. But regardless of the title, whether it indicates a secular responsiblity or one in which the holder is gifted in Qur'anic studies and Islamic hadith (the oral traditions of the life of the Prophet Mohamed) it NEVER means an intermediary between God and humans.

    Your post above, which includes ". . .the ideal of such complete submission even to the will of God that appears to be such a prominent requirement in Islam" prompts me to respond that "submission" is NOT just a requirement, it the core, the essence of Islam. A Muslim/Muslima is "one who submits to God." And that is what FAITH is all about - submission to God, whether in Judaism or Christianity or Islam. As humans, we all know that there are various levels of submission in faith and one does the best he/she can. It is a lifelong learning process for most, not something that happens in the blink of an eye. And as one matures, we pass from the concept of "as a child, I thought as a child" into(hopefully) a more learned phase of life. And IMHO (In My Humble Opinion)it is at that stage that one might be more willing to accept the beliefs and customs of others.

    Insofar as American Muslims working to create an environment of the separation of church and state in the USA, I'm a bit skeptical. Islam is not just a religion, it is a way of life. Perhaps in another generation or so, when there are more American-born Muslims, rather than those who have converted or moved to the USA as children, it might be more reasonable. And perhaps by then, Muslims world-wide will have had a better opportunity to improve their economic and educational situations.

    In the meantime, here is a link to a really fine, thought provoking article in the Washington Post by former NYTimes journalist Youssef Ibrahim about trying to implement American-style democracy in Iraq after the war. Although it was written specifically in the context of the war in Iraq, it will give readers an idea of what a predominantly Islamic country must deal with when facing a way of life that we in the USA take for granted. But American-style democracy is NOT always workable. I don't meant o try to bring politics into this discussion, but Youssef Ibrahim is a highly respected journalist and his comments are very incisive. It it my intention by including this link to help the posters here understand Islam a bit better.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8222-2003Mar21.html

    Ann Alden
    March 27, 2003 - 07:54 am
    Persian, I read the article from the Post and then went searching for other articles about "Islamic Democracy" which according to some people is an "oxy-moron". I found this 2 yr old article from the BBC and thought it a good explanation of what happens when the leaders of a country(in this article, Iran) try to initiate a new type of government when there is a strong theocracy empowered. IMO, it is so complicated. Maybe, too complicated. Islamic Democracy?

    As to "submission to God" being a way of life for the Islamic, where does one get any answers to daily questions concerning their obligations or obedience to God? Are they permitted to do their own translations of the Koran?

    When I was still church active, one of the many things brought up at such small gatherings as prayer groups, was the obligation, by example, of living the Christian way of life. And, couldn't this be true of any religion?

    Persian
    March 27, 2003 - 08:32 am
    ANN - I think your comments reflect exactly what Yussef Ibrahim's article was focusing on: the democratic way of life (as understood in the West) is not compatible with many Islamic countries, simply because they do not have the tradition or political infrastructure to make it work. In many of the countries, politicians have their jobs for life - they are not elected, they are appointed by the ruling leadership, which means they are at his beck and call. Thus, there is no reason to want to be "democratic" and every reason to avoid this type of governance.

    No, Muslims do NOT have leeway to "interpret" the Holy Qur'an to fit their daily lives. Muslims believe that the scriptures were dictated by God to the Prophet Mohamed and cover every aspect of human life. There are not only laws (as one finds in Leviticus), but deep traditions of family life and behavior that have carried over for centuries. However, if you are asking can Muslims use their own intellect to deal with daily life in addition to the teachings of the Qur'an, of couse they can. Muslims learn just like everyone else from family members and individuals who are more mature and more versed in traditions and scriptures. They learn from studying and worshipping alongside other Muslims. Children and youth learn from Quranic classes and studying the hadith (the oral traditions of the Prophet Mohamed, his wisdom and sayings to the Islamic community of his time); adults learn from each other, members of their family or respected members of their communities. Being "a good Muslim" is not so different from being "a good Christian." Having an "Islamic" outlook on life is quite similar to having "a Christian outlook on life." IMO, acting like "a good Muslim" is for the most part, akin to acting "like a good Christian." One does not have to be deeply religious to be a good Muslim. Whenever I think of the phrase "a good Muslim," I liken it to being "a good person," caring and concerned about others.

    Ann Alden
    March 27, 2003 - 10:34 am
    Persian, thanks for clearing that up. I feel that the 'good Muslim' and the 'good Christian' and the 'good person' can all live harmoniously.

    Harold Arnold
    March 27, 2003 - 11:13 am
    I have read both the Washington Post article linked by Persian and Ann's link to the BBC article on "Iranian Democracy." I was aware of many of the basic points stressed in the Yoyssef Ibrahim article and was not surprised by it. The lack of understanding of, and appreciation for democracy in many third world countries and perhaps particularly in the Islamic ones, should be apparent to anyone with access to news. When we say we are liberating Iraq, the typical Iraqi doesn't realize what that means. The joking comment, "don't pray for democracy in the middle east, you might get what you pray for," is perhaps good advise since the alternate to current governments tyrannical though they be, is likely to be worst.

    I suppose the BBC article on "Iranian Democracy" can be criticized as a view of the situation through Western rose-colored glasses, but over the past decade there have been signs that the Iranian people have affected decisions of their Government. Iran has the making of a constitutional government complete with legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Despite the constitutional final veto power of the Ayatollah the secular departments have been able to effect liberalizations that would not have been allowed 25 years ago. People with a little freedom tend to want more. Might this trend continue in Iran and follow in Iraq and elsewhere in the Islamic world?

    Persian
    March 27, 2003 - 01:56 pm
    HAROLD - would you mind giving a couple examples of what you consider "liberalizations that would not have been allowed 25 years ago" in Iran. Certainly "people with a little freedom tend to want more," but in Iran, they also "disappear" as readily as their voices are heard - especially if they are heard publicly outside a very tiny circle of friends or family. It makes little difference whether the individual who speaks out is a well known member of society, a govt. official, academic or ordinary citizen. The religious influence in governments like Iran's is enormously strong - there just simply is no comparison in any Western country, so it is difficult for Westerners to understand the danger level.

    Iran also had legislative, executive and judicial branches of govt. under the late Shah Mohamed Pahlavi. There were also women representatives in govt. positions. However, every representative was under the control of the Shah (through his designated representatives)and could be relieved of office instantly for "personal reasons." These contemporary forms of Western government do not assure fairness. A "majlis" (assembly for the people based on ancient tribal custom in Iran and Gulf countries) or "Loya Jirga" (Afghanistan) could replace them with little difference in outcome.

    I don't think the citizens of Islamic countries want "freedom" (as Westerners know the word) so much as they want economic stability, an opportunity for education and a sense of understanding and respect from the West. Many of the countries have evolved from large tribal confederations - and in some areas that is STILL the form of government, particularly in Western and Eastern Afghanistan and Pakistan and among the tribes in the Southern Arabian Peninsula - and would shy away from making independent decisions. There is a certain "comfort level" in being able to present problems to a village elder or tribal Sheik at a majlis and have that individual settle the issue, rather than worry about the outcome on an individual basis. Americans are gung-ho independent and hate asking for assistance. That is simply not the way in the Islamic countries.

    kiwi lady
    March 27, 2003 - 02:19 pm
    Mahlia - This is so true. We as Westerners do not understand that some types of Govt we would not accept are perfectly acceptable to other cultures.

    Carolyn

    Ann Alden
    March 27, 2003 - 02:29 pm
    Persian, you have certainly made understanding the Asian countries a little easier for all of us here. Thanks!

    kiwi lady
    March 27, 2003 - 03:18 pm
    Ann - Asia is a different kettle of fish again. What Mahlia is talking about is Middle Eastern Culture.

    Carolyn

    Harold Arnold
    March 27, 2003 - 04:58 pm
    In message #416 Persian asked:
    HAROLD - would you mind giving a couple examples of what you consider "liberalizations that would not have been allowed 25 years ago" in Iran.


    Yes, click the following for a Time Line summary of U.S. – Iran Relations 1906-2002. Scroll down to 1997 through 2002 for a number of events indicating a change away from the extreme conservatism that had governed Iran policy after the1979 revolution. The following is a summary of some of the principal events I interpretative indicative of the possibility for future reform.

    1997, Kahtami elected (President) in landside win. Mohammad Khatami, a moderate, won an unexpected 70% of the popular vote defeating the stunned conservative who had been considered a shoe-in. This election was confirmed by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei despite the fact that the Constitution gave him the clear power to veto the election.


    1998, Khatami, & Albright signal a warming of relations= Khatami proposed cultural exchanges. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright invites Iranians to join with the U.S. to draw up a "road map leading to normal relations. I think some cultural exchanges have occurred. I have a recollection of an American participation in an Iranian Chest tournament


    1999, Khatami Visits Italy, the first visit by an Iranian leader to a Western country in 20 years.


    In July 1999 Iranian students crashed with police demonstrating against the closing of a reformist newspaper and proposed legislation restricting the press.


    2000, Reformers take control of Parliament winning 70% of the seats in a February election.


    2001, Khatami reelected president this time with 80% of the popular vote.


    Khatami denounced bin Laden's followers. This was in a post 9/11 interview with an American publication.


    Secretary of State Colin Powell and Mohammad Khatami shake hand at a November meeting at the U.N.


    2002, In March Iran responds to a U.S. Senate offer for direct talks with American Legislators.


    The items I have listed above are all supportive of the idea that Conservative Islamic Governments can change. Granted those of you who click the link will note that negative events are sprinkled between the favorable ones generally related to the Khobar Towers bombing, the Israeli seizure of a ship carrying arms to Palestine, and the Axis of Evil speech. Not for a moment am I offering these events as evidence of a present deviation of Iran from the straight and narrow conservative path. I just say they should not be ignored as a sign that a little freedom and the general desire for a better life effects Iran and Islam as well as us. Like the blossom on the twig in the beak of the little bird that Noah saw as the flood receded, they should be nurtured and not ignored.

    Persian
    March 27, 2003 - 06:20 pm
    HAROLD - thanks very much. Yes, indeed, these are moments of hope which the younger Iranian generation hopes will grow and blossom.

    Ann Alden
    March 27, 2003 - 06:29 pm
    Kiwi, I meant Middle Eastern, 'scuse me! Sorry about my slip of the finger!

    Ella Gibbons
    March 27, 2003 - 07:08 pm
    WHAT A FASCINATING CONVERSATION YOU ALL HAVE ENGAGED IN WHILE I WAS GONE!

    I have read them all and have noticed, as several of you posted, that the subject of the book does lend itself to byways of individual examples or individual experiences of religious beliefs which, of course, would happen if we were all together around the table or relaxed in a living room. One cannot help but interject topics that are of particular interest.

    However, I also note that we only have 4 days left to finish the book - the last chapter, I believe!

    Is that right, Harold?

    I've been gone since the 22nd of the month and confess I have not completely re-read the last chapter titled "Legacy." And I may be completely off the mark, but I would guess Feiler is talking about Abraham's legacy? What it meant to be the Abraham of biblical fame, the ancestor of three great faiths?

    What would he think of today's world - of today's multiple religions? What does God think? Does God think - does God judge?

    MAHLIA - I know we have briefly touched on this subject before, but could I ask you again what portions of the Koran are biblical in nature or would it be better to ask - what portions duplicate, or are similar to, the Christian bible or the Hebrew bible?

    When my daughter leaves tomorrow, I will go back to the book and have more references to quote, but in the meantime............

    Thanks for all the posts - they were so interesting!

    Harold Arnold
    March 27, 2003 - 09:18 pm
    Hey there Ella, Welcome back! We really missed you. I'm sure you had a wonderful time with your daughter in N.Y.

    I think you can consider us into the first part of Chapter 8. "Legacy." By my reckoning we are on Pages 190 – 204 on the prospects for détente or respectful co existence, and the barriers poised against the achievement of this elusive state. Some of the discussion was centered around PP 101 and 202 and some ideas of the American Theologian Walter Breuggemann that are presented there.

    I think we are on tract to finish Monday as scheduled, though I think the way is open to carry over a day or two if we find it necessary. At this point I don't think it will be necessary. You go ahead and take the play by play and I'll resume my role providing color.

    georgehd
    March 27, 2003 - 09:21 pm
    Yes I am here still reading the posts which are very interesting but have little to do with the book specifically - which I think is good since we are learning more from each other than from the book.

    Ella, I am afraid that I am most dissappointed in the book and do not see too much reason to finish it or sum it up. I think of Abraham as a fairly simple person, a tribal person, a wanderer, and a man seeking a higher understanding of himself and the universe as he saw it. In his quest, he saw people worshipping multiple gods, and he rejected that in favor of a belief in one God. He entered into a covenant with God. And he left two offspring, who later founded two religions as we know them. I do not think that Abraham would have understood today's world or even the religions of 2000 years ago. For Abraham, there was no organized religion. I think that this is a very important point that Feiler does not deal with. The organization of religion (beliefs, laws, hierarchy, etc) came well after Abraham. It was this organization by followers of one sect or another that led eventually to a lot of strife, misunderstanding, hatred, etc. etc. It would be nice to turn back the clock of human existance and with our current knowledge relive or recreate the last 2000 years of religious history. But we cannot do that.

    Ella you ask, What does God think, How does God judge? This creates a problem for me as I do not think of God with human attributes. God does not think or judge. IMO (that was a new abreviation for me). God is something unimaginable - an idea best defined by what it is not. Again IMO. If I read Mahalia's posts correctly (and they are really interesting), Islam and Judaism are probably closest in their view of God - a view first attributed to Abraham. The name for God in the Hebrew text is Yaweh - an English rendition of an unpronouncable Hebrew word. Jews cannot imagine God - we have no image of him. We have no real words to describe God. In fact Orthodox Jews would not write God; they would write G-d in order to avoid any thought that a human could fully understand or represent God with a term of language.

    One other point, Judaism, like Islam, is not just a religion - it is a way of life - a guide for living one's life. As an American I believe in the separation of church and state. But for many Jews and Muslims the state is merely the political arm of a way of life described in religious terms. I am probably stating this idea very badly. You cannot separate the church and state in Israel or in most Muslim countries.

    I fear that our president thinks that US ideas of religious freedom and democracy can be imposed in the Middle East. I view this as an impossible task. But I wander far afield from our book. Sorry.

    Persian
    March 27, 2003 - 09:25 pm
    ELLA - I'm not sure what you mean by ". . . which portions of the Qur'an are biblical . . . ."

    The Holy Qur'an, according to Islamic belief, is the VERBATIM word of God, communicated to the Prophet Mohamed over a period of years. Each word, each sentence is considered to be directly from God. Since Mohamed was illiterate, he dictated God's words (again verbatim) to scribes. According to Islam, there is no "interpretation" of the earlier scriptures of the Jews or Christians. Islam and it's Holy Word (the Qur'an) is considered by Muslims to be the "capstone" of God's word and his attempt to communicate with this children. His earlier attempts failed, since His people did not pay attention to His Laws.

    The first similarity that comes to mind is the Islamic belief in One God. Other similarities perhaps refer to the the names of earlier prophets and stories in the Qur'an, which are also familier to Jews and Christians, but often from a totally different timeline or outcome. The dietary laws for Muslims are almost identical as those for observant Jews. Jesus is respected by Muslims as a learned teacher and prophet to his people (the Jews), but certainly NOT as the son of God or in the context of a trinity.

    GingerWright
    March 27, 2003 - 09:49 pm
    My final message I think. I Love God and think of God as a Spirit who created our world and us so the word God is to me a title. I have God's spirit in this Human body and Love God. Call God by the name you will God will answer Your Prayers. To me the book was not half as good as Your posts and I Thank You So Much for your posts and Clickables. I do believe in One God who Loves us All.

    Persian
    March 27, 2003 - 11:32 pm
    GINGER - a truly wonderful Bon Voyage message. Many blessings for you and yours.

    Hats
    March 28, 2003 - 01:19 am
    Hi Ella, I am glad you are back. I finished the book Abraham by Bruce Feiler. Unfortunately, I had to take it back to the library. I am looking forward to your quotes.

    The posts and clickables have been very helpful, and I have a lot of new knowledge. I don't know if I can remember all of it, but at least, I have been introduced to all of these ideas. I am glad to have been part of the discussion.

    kiwi lady
    March 28, 2003 - 06:14 am
    Thanks for all the informative posts and the biggest blessing the posters were considerate and sensitive towards other points of view. GeorgeH and Mahlia you contributed a lot to my knowledge. Thank you all again.

    Carolyn

    Hats
    March 28, 2003 - 07:24 am
    DANIEL DERONDA BY GEORGE ELIOT is coming on some A&E stations. It is a classic about a man searching for his Jewish roots. There is a lot of information about it on A&E.Com. I think it begins to air on this Sunday.

    I am not particularly good at passing on this sort of information. I thought some of us might like to see it for various reasons.

    Ann Alden
    March 28, 2003 - 10:05 am
    Welcome home, Ella. Give Cindy a hug for me!

    We have had so much information posted here that we could write our own book. Its been extremely enjoyable to share ideas and knowledge(theirs, not mine) with everyone especially georgehd and mahlia but others also like Babi, Kiwi, Ginger, Harold and all those whose names have slipped the squishy boundries of my mind.

    Ginger, what a beautiful post! Thanks for that!

    As I said earlier, way back, I am glad that I read the book and was able to discuss it with such knowledgeable posters. I would not know so many new things if we hadn't spent this time together. Thanks Ella and Harold. 'Youse guys are greaaaaaaaaaaaat!

    Hats
    March 28, 2003 - 10:50 am
    I also would like to thank Ella and Harold for leading us through this book. I would like to thank Persian and Georgehd and everyone else. All of you have been very helpful.

    georgehd
    March 28, 2003 - 11:19 am
    As we conclude our discussion, I, too want to add my thanks to all who have contributed to my understanding of religion and the role of Abraham.

    For those of you who have not read The Life Of Pi, may I suggest that this is an excellent book to further your appreciation of God and religious belief. The discussion we had was excellent and is available on line.

    This is probably my last post, unless of course one of the group posts something that makes me want to respond. Thank you all.

    Ella Gibbons
    March 28, 2003 - 11:22 am
    Wait, wait, don't go away yet! Just stay for a few more days and thanks to all of you for your kind words.

    Harold suggested that we discuss the "prospects for détente or respectful coexistence, and the barriers poised against the achievement of this elusive state."

    And Feiler's book says "Hebron, about 25 milers south of Jerusalem, was long a benchmark of coexistence; JEWS AND MUSLIMS LIVED PEACEFULLY HERE FOR CENTURIES AND PRAYED TOGETHER AT THE TOMBS"

    Could it happen again someday - is it impossible? What are the barriers to a peaceful co-existence today?

    Could it be this? GEORGE said that Judaism and Islam are both "a guide for living one's life."

    With that in mind and with their religions closely resembling each other, what is the problem here?

    Can we discuss this? We need to, I think, as America is inserting itself in the Middle East as we speak, with dire consequences for the future unless we get it right!

    We, in the past, have been friends with Israelites, can we have the same relationship with the Muslims in the future?

    We need answers.

    later, ella

    Ella Gibbons
    March 28, 2003 - 11:27 am
    One more quote:

    "I believe if I'm going to die, or be shot, it's my destiny. God wants me to die at this moment. Even if I'm at home, then I'll die. So why should I be afraid to go to dangerous places? This is what helps suicide bombers kill themselves. They believe it's their destiny."(p.191)


    Is this unique to Muslims? Does any other religion teach this belief in destiny? In WWII, we encountered suicide kamikaze pilots toward the end of the war - young men who also believed that their mission, if a failure, would be their ticket into paradise.

    Any comments about this peculiar idea?

    Persian
    March 28, 2003 - 12:19 pm
    ELLA - here is a link to a fine article in today's Washington Post by Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadaat Professor of Peace at the University of Maryland, offering an incisive look at how the Arabs of the Middle East view the manner in which the Western coalition, led by the USA, has completely torn away any sense of respect for them, especially in the unbalanced (negative) treatment of Palestinians. Telhami's comments are important, since he, like Youssef Ibrahim (former NYTimes journalist) explain in depth to Westerners a side of the Arab/Muslim Middle East which seems to have been overlooked.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39903-2003Mar27.html

    PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCE: Certainly the Arabs and Jews lived together peacefully for many years (and not just in Hebron), but how long can a people suffer (Palestinians) - and their suffering witnessed by others (especially in the West)without force entering the picture. Right now, we are beginning to read in the press that the American military leadership have begun to wonder if indeed their understanding of Iraq's leadership was skewed. No kidding! Even though we Americans have fire power never before known to man in the history of the planet, the Iraqis (even those who loath their President)still have the shreds of their dignity in tact. And it is the Arab's deep sense of pride ("saving face")which seems to have been overlooked or not understood at all by the West.

    People (of any nation, ethnicity, religion) cannot live together in harmony if there is not mutual respect and a willingness to help each other. The vast financial resources that have poured into Israel since Statehood have helped it to blossom; yet only a few kilometers away is crushing poverty in the Palestinian camps. How many more young American women will have to be crushed under the treads of Israeli tanks (as happened recently) to protest the unbalanced treatment for Palestinians? A common reply is "yes, but think of Yasser Arafat and his terrorists." OK, but if the West has the enormous resources and firepower committed to rid Iraq of Sadaam Hussein during the past week, certainly Arafat could have been ousted.

    IMO and from what I've seen personally in my travels in the Middle East, heard from Jewish and Arab colleagues specializing in the region, read in the comments of experienced writers/journalists in the press, and listened to from analysts in various institutes and foundations, there will be no peaceful co-existence in the Middle East UNTIL there is more of a sense of balance brought into the lives of the Palestinians.

    There is a "split personality" among Arabs which can at times drive one nuts! Yet it is also true that at times of unrest, like right now, those Egyptians and Saudis who previously insisted they are removed from the fray are agitating rapidly to commit themselves to "fight for our Arab brothers in Iraq." The "Arab Nation" (which really only exists in one's dreams)has been disgraced by the dastardly poor treatment of Palestinians and during the past week by watching events unfold in Iraq, which has resulted in numerous civilians being killed by coalition bombing. Middle Eastern logic is NOT American logic; Middle Eastern reasoning is NOT American reasoning.

    Before I give the total impression that I am only on the side of the Palestinians, let me mention - again - that I'm from a multicultural family which includes French/Irish Christians, Persian Jews AND Muslims; my husband is an Egyptian Muslim; and my son is a Christian Army Chaplain, currently deployed somewhere in the battle. I'm just for more of a BALANCE for the peoples of the Middle East. I would be quite happy to see Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein removed from the picture and more tolerant and diplomatic individuals take their place.

    I don't by any means intend the above comments to infer that this discusion should now change to one of politics, but the Middle East is a volatile region. And it is almost impossible to discuss it (at any level) without understanding the background, actions of the people and why they behave in the manner they do. The latter is NOT only due to differences between Jews, Christians and Muslims - remember there are numerous Arab Christians! - but also to the economic and educational imbalance felt by the residents.

    I hope my comments will be read in the manner in which they are intended - simply as information for individuals who may not have a strong background in the Middle East - and offered without any intent to insult or compromise the beliefs/preferences of any other participant in this discussion.

    GingerWright
    March 28, 2003 - 01:01 pm
    Persian

    Thank You for your Washington Post clickable as to me it was Very informitive. You have Not offended me in any way.

    kiwi lady
    March 28, 2003 - 01:23 pm
    There is more to forging relationships than overcoming the religious differences. I remember seeing a documentary where a Christian organisation had been running a club for Jewish and Palestinian Children, this would have been just before the assassination of the Israeli PM who was trying to accomplish a resolution for the area. The kids would meet socially but also discuss their dreams. their lives and their hope for peace. Unfortunately the club which was held in the Palestinian area had to be disbanded because of safety reasons and the difficulty of meeting but a lot of the kids kept in touch by email via the organisation who had started the club.

    Politics has destroyed the harmony of the area. I don't believe its religion at all. Religion is blamed but its nationalism which is at the root of the problem.

    If we can live in peace in New Zealand regardless of religious persuasion it proves the point that politics are the problem. I have no easy answer I think it will take the younger generation to say "I am sick of all this" and to do something about it for the situation to change. I feel terribly for the Palestinians they are cooped up like the Jews in the Ghettos of Poland. They have no dignity. They have had land given to them taken from them. Can one wonder if they are bitter.This is not to say I condone the suicide bombings or the Israeli bombardments. It is horrifying and to me its like we have gone back in time instead of stepping forward.

    I guess I cannot understand why people kill each other. I will never understand how they can.

    Carolyn

    Hats
    March 28, 2003 - 01:53 pm
    Persian, your comments make a great deal of sense. Thank you for the link. I remember hearing on the news about that poor girl being mowed over. Very, very sad. It is unfortunate that we can't live in peace all around the world. When one nation suffers, all nations suffer. No man is an island. We need each other.

    Hats
    March 28, 2003 - 01:59 pm
    Carolyn, New Zealand sounds like a wonderful place. Maybe it will take the younger generation to sort these problems out.

    Persian, I like the word "BALANCE." Your words are far from offensive. Your words are wise.

    georgehd
    March 28, 2003 - 03:58 pm
    I feel the need to say something about my view of the Palestinian-Israeli situation. Israel was created out of the collective guilt of the Christian west after the second world war. No country was willing to accept Jewish refugees in the numbers needed at that time. There is a long history of Zionism that goes back to the nineteenth century that is both interesting and disturbing. Be that as it may, in 1948 Israel was created using land occupied by Jews and Muslims and Christians. It was immediately attacked by its Arab neighbors but managed to win that first war and then each subsequent war. There was no unity among the Arab states at that time, just as there is little unity among the Arab states today.

    I remember my father and mother arguing about whether there should be a Jewish state; but once it was created the family united to support Jews in Israel (remember I spoke of Jews as a community in a previous post). I continued in that tradition making many trips to Israel during the late 1960's and early 1970's. I went as part of a group either on fact finding missions or missions to help the Israelis solve problems that they were having due to the enormous influx of Jews from Russia, the Arab states and other countries. At that time I actually went to the Gaza strip and saw one side of a road beautiful and green with farms and people raising crops. On the other side of the road there was a barren waste and camps surrounded by barbed wired that contained the Palestinians who had fled Israel. Just as the West did not want the Jews after World War II, the Arab countries did not want the Palestinians. Just think about Saudi Arabia and its tremendous oil wealth. Could they have come to the aid of the Palestinians? I believe they could have but chose not to. The Arab countries (and Israel) wanted Palestinians as workers but not as nationals.

    So two or three generations of Palestinians have grown up in abject poverty and unfortunately with poor leadership. To those who criticize the US for not aiding the Palestinians, I ask what about the oil rich Arab countries? Where was their aid? The US poured tremendous amounts of aid into Egypt and the country is still extremely poor.

    So we have two peoples who have become ever more nationalistic and ever more rabid in their hatred of each other. I believe that we could have had peace some years ago, had Arafat really wanted peace. But the Palestinian leadership as well as the leadership of most Arab countries wanted only one thing - the complete destruction of the state of Israel. When you live in a small country like Israel surrounded by people who want to destroy you - you become every more fearful and defensive. I totally disagree with the policy of the Israeli government to continue to develop settlements. But I understand the mentality that leads to this decision. (It is interesting that when I was in Israel in 1967-68, the official government policy was no settlements!)

    There is no question that the US is more pro Israel than pro Palestinian; the US is dependent on Middle East oil and continues to see Israel as a democratic state with a strong army. Frankly, I think that if there were no oil in the Middle East, the US would have abandoned Israel long ago.

    Now our policy in the Middle East has taken a far more dangerous turn and I for one think that we are in for a very long and difficult period of continued unrest in the region. I pray that Israel and the Israelis will survive, but their position in the middle of what could become a holy war, is certainly precarious.

    I firmly believe that a Palestinian state and a Jewish state can exist side by side and probably working together could create a wonderful rebirth of the region. But that will not happen as long as religious leaders in the region continue to urge hatred and distrust. I blame the religious leaders more than I blame the politicians. As noted in a previous post, church and state are not separated in the Middle East.

    War breeds brutality and continuing war breeds increasing brutality. I think that we are seeing that result on both sides of this war that has gone on since 1948.

    georgehd
    March 28, 2003 - 04:02 pm
    By the way, Mahalia, your posts are excellent and have helped me to think more clearly about Islam and the difficulties of politics in the Middle East. I wish that your balanced view were shared by more Muslims and Orthodox Jews.

    I too saw the article in the Washington Post and found it right on target.

    BaBi
    March 28, 2003 - 04:03 pm
    KIWI LADY, you wrote: "Politics has destroyed the harmony of the area. I don't believe its religion at all. Religion is blamed but its nationalism which is at the root of the problem."

    I agree that religion gets too much of the blame. Yet it seems to me that in some cultures, like the Jewish and Middle Eastern Islam, religion and nationalism are so closely intertwined that it seems impossible to separate the two. Look at how many groups of people, taking their identity from cultural/religious roots, have sought to become separate independent states in the last couple of decades.

    I think most of us are coming to agree that we Westerners really need to forget the idea that we should try to "fix-it" for other peoples. Thanks to discussions like this, it is beginning to dawn on us that what's great for us is not necessarily the thing for everybody. ..Babi

    Persian
    March 28, 2003 - 04:32 pm
    GEORGE - I am so thankful that you came back to add more commentary to this discussion. Your words are truly relevant, not only to the history of Israel and its Statehood, but to the reasons WHY. May I add that an enormous amount of land which had belonged to Arab families for generations was owned by absentee landlords who thought of "increasing their purse" and sold the land, rather than hold on to it for later generations.

    There have been some wonderful efforts over the years by Jews to improve the lot of the Palestinians. Particularly in the context of youth-to-youth encounters OUTSIDE Israel, the events have proved heart warming.

    Yes, indeed the Arab countries (here I think particularly of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, although the latter is certainly a poorer country than the former)could well have taken their share of Palestinian residents. But among the Arabs countries, they fear the Palestinians as trouble makers and wanted nothing to do with them. The Saudis in particular gain my wrath, since although they have arisen from the great Bedouin custom of hospitality to a stranger in need, they have not offered that same refuge to their Palestinian brothers. Jordan, which has a majority population of Palestinians, has kept a tight check on these residents. But with the death of King Hussein and his son Abdullah's ascent to the monarchy in Jordan, the Palestinians in Jordan have not fared well. King Hussein was highly respected by the populace and the feeling was mutual. Abdullah has not taken the same level of interest in the Palestinians in Jordan and they know/feel his resentment.

    Whenever the Arab countries who might be considered as logical places of refuge for the Palestinians were approached (here again I think of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the smaller Gulf countries like Kuwait), they adamently refused. However, when Iraq sent funds to the Palestinian familes, they were criticized. And much more so when they sent funds to the families of the suicide bombers. The latter is disgusting ruse and intended to encourage others to give their sons and daughters as martyrs "to the cause." Yet other Arab countries could have shared their wealth, but didn't.

    The funds Egypt receives from the USA are only slightly less than what Israel receives. Egypt is indeed a poor country; the poverty in some areas is simply unbelievable, BUT by no means as destitute as what the Palestinians have suffered. The leadership of the Arab countries (and here I speak most certainly of Saudi Arabia and Egypt)could have assisted over the years, but did not. The Arab sense of falawhi (slyness, cunning and saying something without actually meaning it) has been so prominently displayed that it is laughable. It's similar to the American's "NIMBY" (not in my backyard).

    I, too, share the belief that Israel and Palestine can co-exist, side by side. But the point George makes is unfortunately true: it will not happen until the younger generations get together and firmly say "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH." The deep-seated hatred towards each other of people like Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon are rock-solid obstacles to any sense of peaceable resolution. It is a blight on all humanity that these "Sons of Abraham" are still at each other after all these centuries.

    Harold Arnold
    March 28, 2003 - 05:04 pm
    At its best I don't think the U.S. has been an effective third party mediator in negations between the Palestinians and Israeli. At their worst the U.S. effort has been a disaster first in the 1950 forcing the Arab countries into a 30-year flirtation with the Soviet camp. This came despite the fundamental contradiction between communism and Middle East religious and other social traditions.

    Again I think it is politics, in this case U.S. domestic politics, that have made it impossible for the U.S. to be a truly impartial mediator. I wonder if perhaps the increased size of the U.S. Islamic community might now make responsible political action by U.S. Muslims productive in restoring balance. I suspect also at the end of the current action in Iraq the the middle east political situation may also tend to favor a more balanced U.S. stance in any future resumption of negotiations.

    kiwi lady
    March 28, 2003 - 05:50 pm
    I saw just this morning a program about Arab families living in the USA some are three generation immigrants. They have been persecuted since 9/11. One young woman who was born in the USA showed some of the emails she and her family have been getting - they were awful. Her parents who have lived there for 30 yrs want to go back to their country of origin. They are very scared. They say the Arab community are also being persecuted by the authorities - phone tapping- interrogations etc. The families all agreed that the persecution by rednecks has worsened since the start of the War in Iraq. It was on a program called Sunday Assignment which is a NZ made documentary series. The reporting in this program is very well done. It has won awards and is known for investigative journalism. I wish I had been able to tape it and send it to each of you but the cost of changing the format to USA format is expensive. We have a different video format from the USA. I wanted to tell you so you would know how very sad it is that things have come to this.

    I have to say I have never encountered such hatred for Arabs in NZ as I have encountered on the net from Americans. (some Americans) It is so ugly. We have not had such hatred here even when our media has interviewed Iraqi NZers who have gone home to fight for their country and their family and to try and keep them safe. Let me say here and now that no one loves Saddam Hussein at all in this country but the majority of people here did not want to be involved with this war. We are happy for our troops to help with the war on Terrorism and nobody said a word when our SAS went into Afghanistan to try and get Al Quaeda. I have enjoyed this forum so much as everyone is so reasonable with their posts. Would that everyone could get on so well!

    Carolyn

    Persian
    March 28, 2003 - 06:41 pm
    HAROLD - your point about the US Muslim voice is well timed. I'm looking forward to a period in American political history when younger, better educated, articulate and civic minded American Muslims will stand for public office at the community, County, State and Federal levels; when they will let their voices be heard publicly, unafraid of what others may think of their religious beliefs; and a time when the overall populace of our great country will be less intolerant of "differences" than now.

    CAROLYN - the focus of the TV program you described is well known in the USA. The atrocious attacks on Indian Hindus and Siks, as well as Arab and non-Arab Muslims in the USA post 9/11 is a shame to our Nation. The ignorance of and brutality towards Muslims in the USA reminds me of the hateful discrimination that our Native Americans and Black citizens have experienced (and still do in certain areas of the USA).

    Indeed there have been Arab Muslims, as well as Arab Christians, in the USA for several generations. Many of them are from Syria and Lebanon; small business owners who take great pride in their families and the accomplishments of their children and grandchildren. Other Muslims (especially non-Arabs) have resettled in the USA as refugees from war zones.

    The recent ruling by the American Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)to interview (and detain many) men between the ages of 18 - 45 in the USA reminds me of the sweep of the Japanese communities in the West and subsequent incarceration of entire families in camps during WWII. I understand the need to be cautious; to identify and hold individuals who may prove dangerous to the USA; and to try to communicate those needs within the Arab community in the USA. Yet there have got to be better ways to achieve those goals than what we have seen. As individual stories become public knowledge, they are tragic. Without doubt, the INS has been one of the worst managed US govt. agencies and the lack of cooperation between our intelligence agencies and INS has played a large part in its ineffectiveness.

    Tonight as I was listening to the news about the timeline and number of soldiers needed in Iraq, I applauded Gen. Wallace who said quite frankly from the field, "we need more troops. We didn't plan for enough coverage." That will not go over well in Washington and he may be removed from the field. But it's an indication of once again how politics overrules just plain common sense.

    As far as I know, Gen. Abizaid is the ONLY AMERICAN COMMAND OFFICER who has any first-hand knowledge of the Middle Eastern culture and/or speaks fluent Arabic. Those officers who have learned Arabic through the Foreign Language Services may have the linguistic skills, but NOT the cultural background to support their language skills.

    Iraqi advisors to the Washington/British leadership are much more interested in political power than helping the average Iraqi citizens after the war, so I would not be surprised at all to see "another, gentler, less violent Saddam Hussein-type" take over after the interim period when an American military officer or American civilian (most likely a recently retired command officer) steps aside after "getting Iraq back on its feet."

    During the past few days, as I've listened to news reports from Ted Koppel and other "embedded" journalists report about the native uprising in support of the Muslim holy cities of Nasiriya and Karbala, I wonder "what is it that Americans do NOT understand about SACRED cities? Yes, the Republic Guards may be forcing the local populace up front; yes, they may be frightened for their families; but the Iraqis local to those two cities are also fighting for their heartland - holy cities which mean more to them than life itself and have been held dear for centuries.

    IMO, oil has been both a blessing and a curse to Iraq!

    kiwi lady
    March 28, 2003 - 06:59 pm
    Mahlia - You are so right about the feeling for the cities. That is what some of our NZ Iraqis are saying. They hate Saddam Hussein but they don't want the invaders either. It is their country, their home, their holy places - I think in the same situation many of us would want to fight for our homeland. Its natural!

    Carolyn

    Diane Church
    March 28, 2003 - 09:39 pm
    Mahlia - my library copy of this book has still not arrived but I have enjoyed the discussion immensely. And you, my dear, have added so much. I find myself wondering why we can't get you signed on as a consultant at some government level. Your knowledge, wisdom, and experience bowl me over. And, as you point out, diplomatically, there is so much our government doesn't begin to understand, much less try to understand. Our people, as a result are sadly misinformed and/or uninformed. I feel disappointed in my country, at the same time loving it. As I heard said recently, "I still love my country but now it's through tears".

    Whatever can we do?

    Persian
    March 28, 2003 - 11:17 pm
    DIANE - if you'd like to send me an email with your mailing address, I'll be happy to send you my copy of the book.

    As for my being a consultant to a govt. agency, I've done my stint with the US Govt (4 years at USDA, followed by independent contracts with NASA, FAA, HHS/NIH, USAID/Africa Bureau and at State), so I feel I've contributed to my govt. I'm too outspoken to be effective in the confines of a govt. agency (regardless of which party is in power). One of my former colleagues at USDA asked me once "do you have to tell the truth ALL THE TIME, especially in front of the Div. Chief?" Either I'm too Irish or the good Lord just did not have a govt. career in mind for me! I'm much better in a multicultural or international environment.

    GingerWright
    March 28, 2003 - 11:43 pm
    Persian

    Yep too Irish and that's the way it tis as we tend to tell it like it is.

    Ginger who is 1/4 Irish

    Ann Alden
    March 29, 2003 - 05:49 am
    This has been the most beneficial discussion for this troublesome time in the Middle East. Is there a Middle East folder here on SN? I have never looked.

    Thanks again to all who have done such a good job of proving that we can discuss differences peacefully.

    I do have a question for Carolyn and anyone from Australia. What are those two countries doing right that allows for peaceful coexistence among different ethnicities and religious beliefs?

    And, has anyone been watching the Chinese experience on American Experience on PBS this week? We have so much to learn!

    I am going to try to continue to read about this subject here and on the net but I am bowing out due to getting ready for Curious Minds new topic. Come join us with what I hope will be a positive and upbeat sharing of "High Hopes" in our world today.

    Ann, who is 1/2 Irish!

    Persian
    March 29, 2003 - 08:20 am
    ANN - there is an Islam segment in the Religion & Spirituality folder, but it has been inactive for some time. When I first asked Marcie to open it, I had high hopes that it would be an area much like this discussion has been: one for learning AND sharing. Initially it attracted some highly beligerent posters and I asked Marcie to close it. We then discussed how it might re-open, but with some restrictions. It opened again and flourished for a bit, but then interest seemed to end. There is also a segment on Israel in the Geographical folder. The War in Iraq folder seems to have attracted the same highly critical, unbalanced posts as experienced by the initial Islam discussion. Too bad.

    Ann Alden
    March 29, 2003 - 11:05 am
    Maybe we ought to take just this Abraham discussion and put it up as the "Middle East" discussion and see what happens. Or, we could give it the name, "Abraham's Legacy"? Yes, and place it in the Religion/Spirituality folder. The problem with any discussion of a particular book is that we last as long as it is proscribed and then we are off to other duties. Well, maybe, I will find myself looking at our local library for more books like this but it won't be the same.

    I am reading a NG article on Inside Islam(an old issue-1/02) and there is such an impressive map of the world(mainly the Middle East) marked with the numbers of Muslims in all of these countries plus a simple history of the area on Faith and Politics: A Volatile Mix.

    LouiseJEvans
    March 29, 2003 - 02:25 pm
    What a wonderful name for a discussion. I think this would be a good thing. After all many of us really don't know too much about people from the mideast.

    Ella Gibbons
    March 29, 2003 - 03:24 pm
    Good ideas! If any of you really want to leave this discussion open for awhile to discuss Muslims with a view to learning more about them and their hatred of the West, we can do that. If there is a need the BOOKS are here to fulfill that need.

    We will leave the discussion open to see if any one participates in a "round robin" event, with no discussion leaders at the helm, although we may participate now and then.

    The last chapter in Feiler's book is an attempt to address the issue of interfaith conversation and spiritual parity among the faiths. Feiler gave us a short history of such attempts beginning with, of all places, the world's fair in Chicago in 1893 and ending with the first World Council of Churches in Geneva in 1948.

    Would anything have changed if more attempts had been made since then to congregate the leaders of the world's religions?

    Of course, that question leads to another one. Is the present war that we are all watching on TV daily a war that is premised on religious differences?

    I will stop babbling now - at times, my thoughts do run on, but I want to thank all of you for one of the most interesting conversations I have had the privilege of attending here in the Books!

    THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR POSTS, YOUR INTEREST AND YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS DISCUSSION. IT WAS TRULY A REMARKABLE ONE!

    One last quote from Feiler:

    "Islam is a couple of hundred years behind......In the same way that American Catholics shaped Vatican II, and American Jews influence world Judaism with modern ideas like the Reform movement, American Muslims must redefine Islam to include separation of church and state, as well as human rights. The future of Islam lies in the West, in a prosperous community of believing Muslims who have a strong, open-minded voice."


    Any comments? Can the West, in time, influence the Middle East?

    kiwi lady
    March 29, 2003 - 03:41 pm
    We have written laws which protect minorities and they are and can be invoked and prosecutions are made.

    However on TV last night we had a doco. My best friend is a Muslim - about Muslims living in NZ. All of them said that people think Arabs are terrorists. (media hype) However they all said people are very friendly to them but after 9/11 they did get sideways glances but no abuse at all.

    I know a Turkish Muslim but he is secular. However there is cultural tradition of moral behaviour- no drinking and promiscuous behaviour. They definately do have a different culture from a secular NZer. Values are strong in their life still.

    Carolyn

    Persian
    March 29, 2003 - 04:09 pm
    "If any of you really want to leave this discussion open for awhile to discuss Muslims with a view to learning more about them and their hatred of the West, we can do that."

    ELLA - thanks for your invitation to continue this discussion. IMO, it would be a pleasure to continue this discussion, but I hope that we would learn (and share) more about Muslims than "their hatred of the West."

    Following Feiler's comments about American Muslims, I'd hope that they are able to "adapt" Islamic principles to the contemporary world, NOT reinterpret Islam.

    For example, in today's Washington Post, there's an article about recent liaison between American Islamic and American Arab groups with the FBI to clarify issues within the Iraqi community in the USA and ease tensions among the foreign-born Muslims. I heartily applaud this effort, not only in Washington DC, but throughout the nation. If there is representation from the Arab American and Islamic groups, coupled with much needed FBI cultural sensitivity, it can only be to the good.

    IMO, Feiler is correct in saying that a better understanding of Islam will take more of a public voice by Muslims to elected office, community service on an interfaith, intercultural basis, and better liaison with local, State and Federal agencies. I believe that for American Muslims, particularly, they will NOT have the same hesitancy or shyness of speaking/acting in public as do those Muslims who are foreign born and from more traditional societies. Nor will they face in the USA the same reprimands or reprisals by officials often directed toward public speakers in foreign countries (i.e. Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia).

    There are also many Muslim women who are already active in their communities, but becuase their endeavors tend to be centered around family issues (i.e., service in schools or hospitals), they do not attract much press attention. Thus the American public is not well informed about their participation.

    Another recent article in the Washington Post referred to a recent marketing endeavor of HADASSAH (a Jewish womens' educational organization)focusing on new membership along the Dulles Airport corridor in Virginia. As I read the information, I thought about the large Muslim population in the same area and wondered if there were Islamic programs actively seeking new members among their adherents.

    I'm a firm believer in "making the system work for you and your interests," and have taught numerous training seminars on this topic. It's so simple, yet effective, and could certainly be promoted within the American Muslim community to encourage people of all ages to be more "civic minded" and to participate in public endeavors where indeed their voices would be heard. And in that way, Islam and Muslims, whether Arabs or not, would not seem so "different" or "mysterious" or "threatening" to their non-Muslim neighbors.

    Lou2
    March 29, 2003 - 05:32 pm
    What a wonderful discussion you all have had on and around Abraham. I hated to leave you in the middle and have returned just in time to read about 300 messages!

    I would like to make one recommendation. I read Haj by Leon Uris several years ago and found it wonderfully instructive on the Jewish/Palestine issue. Have added When Religion Becomes Evil to the list for the next book store run.

    I'm having a terrible time not spending all my time in front of the tv watching every minute of war coverage. You all have added to my understanding of the problems inherent in the situation. Thank You. I look forward to seeing you all again in other discussions.

    Lou

    Harold Arnold
    March 29, 2003 - 05:45 pm
    I want to make a concluding post here to say how much I appreciate the participation of all of you. I think we together represent a wide cross section of the current crop of the children of Abraham. Though we come from diverse backgrounds with widely divergent traditions I think we have discussed the issues in a rational way without rhetoric offensive to anyone. I am glad I read the book and glad for the opportunity to associate with all of you. I feel that as the result of the discussion I now have a better understanding of the issues that divide us, and that I am in a better position to deal with them in the future. Hopefully we will have further occasion to work together in the discussion of other titles and other subjects.

    Regarding the book I think it was an interesting, short overview of a timely subject. Doubtlessly it was conceived as a follow-up to Feiler's earlier book written from research gathered from the first publication. I suppose I sort of lost Feiler's with his concluding personal recreation of Abraham in Chapter 8, following his visit to the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs after his telling of Abraham's death and funeral with the two sons Isaac and Ishmael coming together in reconciliation. After that I was not sure whether the concluding 10 pages were inspired writings seldom, if ever, seen in our times or the frantic output of an author in search of an ending. In the end I suppose my conclusion was they were neither inspired writing, or a hastily conceived ending for a book. Perhaps they were one man's, Feisler's, honest interpretation of his Ancestor and his role in today's world; and that is fine so far as I am concerned. For me I think the reconciliation of the brothers, Isaac and Ishmael, is enough to stand as a metaphor for the eventual reconciliation of Abraham's children. And this is what I was looking for!

    Persian
    March 29, 2003 - 08:56 pm
    The following link to the Book World section of today's Washington Post offers respones to a review on March 16th of Shibley Telhami's recent book THE STAKES: AMERICA AND THE MIDDLE EAST. The first 3 letters in the link are from 1) a former US Ambassador to Israel; (2)a Jewish American who refers to Telhami's book as "balanced;" and 3) a response from the author himself, currently Anwar Sadaat Professor for Peace at the Univerity of Maryland and Non-Resident Senior Fellow at The Saban Institute at The Brookings Institute in Washington DC.

    I offer this link so that posters who may wish to learn more about the situation in the Middle East will better understand how easily it is to "misinterpret" information (even presented by a distinguished scholar)about the region and the current American relationship, as well as understand clearly how individuals with substantial experience in the area, while not being Arab or Muslim, recognize glaring errors and point them out so that others may learn.

    I attempted to find the link to the original review of Telhami's book (March 16th), but was unsuccessful. However, from the comments in the 3 letters, it is clear that there was much disapproval.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39888-2003Mar27.html

    Ann Alden
    March 30, 2003 - 06:55 am
    Persian,

    I am going to read your link but wanted to say that I went into the "Islam" folder and felt, once again, that we all have much to learn. I also watched a short discussion on BookTV with Terrence Ward and his book, "Searching for Hassan" which I will try to get at my library. He brought up the possibility of Islamic Democracy in Iran (of all things!!) I wish I had gotten in on the talk in the beginning as he seems pretty well versed on the topic.

    I like Ella's idea to leave this site open to see if we want to go on discussing this topic.

    Harold, your comment about the possibility of the author frantically searching for an ending to his book left me laughing. I wondered about that also.

    Persian
    March 30, 2003 - 12:42 pm
    ANN - the idea of democracy in Iran has been in the works for some time. The younger Iranian adults are much more interestsed in a better way of life and improved education than they are in continuing the harsh rule of the Mullahs. The current Pres. of Iran is well liked among the populace and although he is from a devout religious background, he is a moderate in his politics. During the last election, it was the young people and the very elderly who kept him in office. The Iranians are from the Shia branch of Islam (followers of Ali, the Prophet Mohamed's son-in-law), which has always been a minority in the greater Islamic world. Although they are the majority in neighboring Iraq (especially in the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala). Since there is already a constitution, parliament (Majlis)and elected officials (however corrupt they may be individually), the infrastructure for democratic reform is in place in Iran.

    kiwi lady
    March 30, 2003 - 01:01 pm
    Mahlia I feel that people do not understand that western democracy does not appeal to many cultures. I think countries like Iran will form their own type of democracy which suits their culture. There may be things we consider to be our right which Islamic nations consider abhorrant to their value systems. I do have to say I agree to a certain degree with many of their values. I think our western culture is far too permissive and we have lost our values and then everyone is sitting about and saying "Oh what shall we do". Its all too politically correct! It is a very sick world when a school can take a 14yr old to have an abortion without the consent and knowledge of the parents. When free TV stations are advertising massage parlours and there are ads for viagra at 7.30pm. Soaps on at early hours showing young adults bedhopping from episode to episode. This is called freedom. Where children are consuming alcohol from a very young age and drugs are rife in our schools. Kids are assaulting their parents. Well a lot has happened in the short time my kids left teenage hood and its not all to the good that is for sure. I truly do thank God that my kids grew up without getting into drugs or becoming teenage parents.

    Carolyn

    Lou2
    March 30, 2003 - 01:03 pm
    Persian,

    Thank you so much for the wonderful links. These articles and letters are so very informative as is each of your messages. What a treasure we have here in you. Please continue to comment and narrate events for us here.

    Lou

    Persian
    March 30, 2003 - 01:32 pm
    CAROLYN - I share your thoughts about the world order and thank God regularly that I am NOT raising children now. Your comments are very astute vis-a-vis the differences between the West and the more traditional and conservative mores of the Middle East. In almost every conversation I've had with friends from that region in recent weeks, they throw their hands up, raise their voices and ask "how can a country like the USA even think that WE would want to be like this culture?" (These are mature professionals who have gleaned the good things from the West: education, professions, etc., but still they are thrown back to their birth heritage in a nanosecond when watching the TV news or reading about the war in Iraq.)

    I'm not sure that they understand that to a Westerner, they may seem to be greedy in the sense of "taking" what is good about the Western culture, while decrying the evils of society. But to them, the tolerance for low morals and all the other points you make in your post above is what throws them over the edge. Yes, they agree, they have had good educations here; they have become professionals in many fields and had the chance to increase their economic stability. But what is REALLY important? FAMILY!!!!!!!!! And when they see the high divorce rates that we have in North America, the infedelity in marriages, the TV trash shows that show everything except conception in front of the camera (and some of those 3 a.m. programs may even cover that), then these folks from the Middle East and their relatives still in the region wonder how does a country AND CULTURE that tolerates that kind of Sodom and Gomorrah behavior have the right to say that American Democracy should replace their current systems in their birth countries.

    IMO, too many Westerners (except perhaps the Brits who had decades of Colonial presence in the Middle East, Central and South Asia) simply do not understand that the Middle East is more than belly dancing and A Thousand and One Nights or Sinbad the Sailor.

    On the opposite side of the table, I've also had some really tough talks with Saudi acquaintances who have tried to "one up" my American background. However, in these conversations, I gently introduce the custom of child and female slavery of non-Saudis in the Kingdom. They are outraged, of course, and defend their country. As well they should. But this custom is prevalent, just as, unfortunately, it has become more common in the USA with the introduction of women and children imported from Asia as sex slaves in brothels throughout the large American cities (particularly New York and Miami)and just recently in the metropolitan Washington DC area.

    There is a strong "split personality" among Arab culture, which is hard for Americans to understand. Certainly, we have huge numbers of homicides in the USA, so the taking of a life is not the prime factor of concern. It is the cause for many of these homicides which people rile against (including Americans): youth killing each other for a pair of Nikes or an Eddie Bauer jacket; for the wrong slant of an eyebrow in a conversation; for pulling out in front of someone on a traffic congested street in rush hour. And these things are reported in Middle Eastern TV programs or written about in the newspapers. The residents in that region are not without blame themselves and many of their journalists and respected academics speak out about the problems. But they are often silenced quite effectively with prison terms (or threats).

    Learning about each other's culture is not something done overnight and not without trauma. But it can be done. Just as we have done in this one discussion, which originally began with a discussion about Abraham, and now continues to explore some of the issues found in the contemporary world of Abraham's legacy. IMO, one of the keys to learning in this fashion is to MAINTAIN respect for each other (and our differences), while at the same time not shying away from the harder issues as we learn.

    BaBi
    March 30, 2003 - 01:40 pm
    HEAR,HEAR!!!

    Ella Gibbons
    March 30, 2003 - 03:28 pm
    And I echo BABI - three cheers for Mahlia! Particularly this sentence - "one of the keys to learning in this fashion is to MAINTAIN respect for each other (and our differences), while at the same time not shying away from the harder issues as we learn.

    RIGHT ON!!!

    If anyone has suggestions for another book to read and discuss on the Islam religion or the Muslims, please post it and we'll take it under consideration.

    kiwi lady
    March 30, 2003 - 03:45 pm
    Mahlia I overcame my prejudice and listened to Cenk a secular Muslim who may someday be my son- in -law. I am amazed how much his values are like mine. He believes marriage to be forever. He believes in children being the number one consideration in a family. He believes in respect for his parents (and me). He believes a dad should be able to support his wife to stay home with the kids until they go to school. Family is very important to him and that will include his inlaws. He loves animals and allows all the local cats into the apartment - he has food and water for them . He is considerate of my daughters opinions and his mother is adored within the family. His dad is loved and respected. All our family like him.

    Carolyn

    Persian
    March 30, 2003 - 04:19 pm
    ELLA - Although I've mentioned it previously, I would highly recommend Charles Kimball's book WHEN RELIGION BECOMES EVIL(Harper Collins, 2002)as a natural follow-up to the ABRAHAM discussion.

    Kimball is writing from the standpoint of an American Christian (whose paternal grandfather was a Polish-Russian Jewish immigrant who married a Presbyterian), who holds a Th.D from Harvard in comparative religion with a specialization in Islamic studies and more than 25 years experience in the Middle East; He is a highly respected public speaker on various aspects pertaining to Jewish, Christian and Islamic issues, as well as a professor of religion and Chair of the Dept. of Religion at Wake Forest University. He's also an ordained Baptist minister.

    Kimball has lived in Cairo and traveled in Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Israel/Palestine. In December 1979 (as the Iranian Revolution was underway), he was one of seven people invited to Tehran. As he states in his book, since he "was one of two clergy in the group who had studied the Qur'an and the Islamic religion tradition, Iranian religious and political leaders received him warmly." He was invited back to Iran in 1980 and 1981 and met personally with Ayatollah Khomeini.

    Thus, although Kimball is an American, he is well versed in the culture, customs, religion and history of the Middle East. His most recent book is one of the very best I've read in a long time on an extremely complex topic. Kimball provides extensive footnotes (which are almost as interesting as the text) and a Selected Bibliography to document his comments. It's an excellent publication!

    Persian
    March 30, 2003 - 04:27 pm
    CAROLYN - you are very, very lucky to have such a fine young man "almost" in your family. You'll have to get used to being referred to as "the beloved Mother of my Soul" (your daughter) and other romantic phrases. He'll make a wonderful husband and doting father (who will probably spoil his kids rotten) and will continue to respect your family as his own. Although it is not usually understood this way in the West, the idea of a wife staying at home and not working in public is often considered by those from the Middle East to be a way of "protecting" the women from the unpleasantness of the world. Not to say that he would not be proud of your daughter's chosen employment if she chooses to work. But the home is a sanctuary and the wife/mother rules it. Period. And the men look forward to returning to that sanctuary, where eventually there will be children to play with and love, when their work is completed at the end of the day. Treasure Cenk, as you obviously aleady do, and he will often repeat to you (or his actions will show it) that "the well being of the world is in the hands of the Mother."

    GingerWright
    March 31, 2003 - 12:09 am
    PLEASE keep the URL the same as it is now as I have posted it in other discussions and will contiune to do so if you will allow me to use the same URL.

    May our Children learn to live together understanding there back ground and others so that there will peace on earth and for me I know there will be.

    Persian
    March 31, 2003 - 08:54 am
    Just as it has been important for us to understand each other in the ABRAHAM discussion, it is also informative for the American public to understand a bit about the Arab print and broadcast press and how the news of War in Iraq is reported and understood in the Middle East. Here is a link to an article in Sunday's Washington Post, entitled PERCEPTIONS: Where Al Jazeera & Co. Are Coming From by Mamoun Fandy, an Egyptian, who offers an assessment of how/why the Arab press (particularly Al Jazeera TV news)reports as it does. His comments are based on his 18 year residence in the USA, coupled with his understanding of Arab culture, govt. propaganda, and dislike of America's seeming lack of understanding of or offers of more assisitance for the Palestinians. To Americans, the issues "from the other side" are not always clear; the highly charged emotional outbursts of people in the Middle East can be uncomfortable to watch and listen to; but again, Fandy's comments are an opportunity to learn what others believe as strongly as we believe what we, as Americans, hold to be true.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45183-2003Mar28.html

    Another article in the same edition, entitled More Afraid of Ideas Than of Capitalism by Ross Terrill, focuses on China - a world away from Iraq but a culture in which the people have benefitted from the Cultural Revolution, while still being tightly reined in by a dangerously dictatorial government. I offer this link since we are looking at "Abraham's Legacy" and the Muslims and Jews of China (descended from the Middle Eastern traders on the Silk Road who intermarried with Han Chinese) certainly fall into that category.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45192-2003Mar28.html

    BaBi
    March 31, 2003 - 09:55 am
    Mahlia, I find the article "Perceptions" a bit frightening. How can one hope to get people to question the truth of what they are seeing, when the mindset is so rigid, so colored? Is there any hope of ever convincing them that America is not a devouring monster?

    We have such mindsets here, I know. Prejudices that have taken generations of education, exposure, and personal experience to break down. But at least people here can speak out against the prejudices without being threatened, imprisoned, or worse. Are there any signs that you can see of hope for better understanding from the Arabic side? ...Babi

    Persian
    March 31, 2003 - 03:07 pm
    Sure, there are plenty of opportunities, but they tend to be individual ones, rather than through entire societies. For example, the collective thinking right now in the Arab world, as well as in Indonesia (which is the country with the largest Muslim population in the world)and other non-Arab countries is that: 1) the Americans are trying to curtail Islam; 2) purposely kill innocent civilians - this is the result of so much being reported in the press about how sophisticated our weaponry is (right out of Star Wars), as opposed to that in Iraq. The thinking is if we (Americans)are so advanced, how come we cannot control our weapons? 3) The lack of interest heretofore in the Arab/Muslim world, its people, languages, customs, culture, religions, etc. Yes, we've allocated alot of funds to the region, but few Americans understand the people. Although money is important, it isn't everything. 4) And the absolute conviction that the Americans refused to give diplomacy and the inspectors from the UN more time to investigate WMD in Iraq.

    A couple of comments I've read recently pretty much sum of the whole feeling: one Iraqi villager said that he would "rather live in poverty, than have Americans occupying his country." Unless one has lived under occupation, it is almost impossible to understand this deep-seated feeling. I have an elderly Iranian friend, who told me that he remembered "watching the Russians march into his town." My husband has spoken often of hearing his parents talk about how "thrilled they were to have the Russians finally leave Egypt."

    Another comment, which really portrays the deepest feelings of "This land is my land," are the comments from residents of Najaf and Karbala, speaking about the holiness of these two cities to Shia Islam. We have no holy cities in the USA; Americans may/may not tend to still think of Jerusalem as holy. But Jerusalem is a long way away from the USA. Najaf and Karbala are "shrine" cities to Shi'ites, where the descendents of the Prophet Mohamed are burried. When Muslims world-wide see "infidels" (non-Muslims) in these cities, their blood boils.

    IMO, just as with most other really important issues, it will take a one-on-one attempt to better understand (and to be understood). Now that the war has begun in Iraq and regardless of how long it lasts, it is so important for people in the USA to more fully understand - NOT accept necessarily, but understand - how the Arab/Muslims think. Talks to others in your families, ask questions, elicit feelings and thoughts, share your own. Then do the same thing with neighbors, colleagues, friends. And especially talk with people from other countries (especially Muslims) currently in the USA, who are feeling very tenuous about speaking about their feelings.

    Don't be discouraged; just share your thoughts. Don't worry about whether someone is a Jew, Christsian, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Wiggan or Shaman; just share your thoughts. Don't assume that just because someone is younger/older/has more or less hair than you do that he/she is wiser/dumber; just share your thoughts. And that's how people connect, begin to understand each other better, and come to realize that although we are Abraham's Legacy - The Children of Abraham - it's time for us to act like adults and talk to each other. We've made an excellent start right here in this discussion. Personally, I think we should take this whole group on the David Letterman Show; then to the Pentagon; then to the White House.

    Persian
    March 31, 2003 - 03:22 pm
    BABI - here's a link to another article in the Washington Post, which gives a clear idea of how European students studying in the USA are hesitant to speak about the war in Iraq and why. Their comments are reflective of basic European trends to more readily discuss the political issues than they seem to feel Americans willing to do. Another opportunity to learn how others think and why.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55019-2003Mar30.html

    GingerWright
    March 31, 2003 - 03:34 pm
    Persian For your information I read all the links you post and appriecite them. Thank You.

    kiwi lady
    March 31, 2003 - 03:41 pm
    Mahlia - via the BBC world program.

    A middle aged middle class Iraqi woman was interviewed. She said she would rather be under the Saddam regime than be occupied by Britain and the USA. She was standing in the wreckage of her home. Many commentators say the coalition was unprepared and unaware of the Nationlistic feeling in Iraq despite all their past hardships. I really can understand it.

    Its so nice to come in here and speak from our hearts without being abused and called terrible names. There is terrible hatred out there from the prowar faction. I can understand how European students would be reluctant to speak their minds.

    Anyone who really knows me in here knows I am a caring person and I will not speak anything that is not true to my heart just to avoid abuse anywhere else. There is much ignorance about middle eastern culture and a naive belief that democracy as we know it will be embraced with gratitude.

    Its such a frustrating job trying to explain to people the mindset of the middle eastern people. I may not like their style of democracy but its the peoples choice. If they want change they will do it from within no matter what the hardships are. This is how successful change is made throughout history.

    Carolyn

    kiwi lady
    March 31, 2003 - 03:44 pm
    An example : Would America have thanked the British if they had invaded the South to stamp out slavery? Americans had to change this themselves from within. This is just a remark to start people thinking.

    Carolyn

    Harold Arnold
    March 31, 2003 - 05:38 pm
    I will not be real active here since I have a number of work items that I must concentrate on though I will read your continuing posts and maybe add an occasionsl post of my own.

    I think Kiwi lady made a good point when she wrote above:
    Would America have thanked the British if they had invaded the South to stamp out slavery? Americans had to change this themselves from within.


    And also mis-understanding is not just a one-way problem. Both the West and East have a role in the understanding of the other's culture.

    Persian
    March 31, 2003 - 05:45 pm
    CAROLYN - good point, although slavery in the USA has NOT been completely repulsed. In some of our larger cities, women and children imported from Asia have become forced workers in factories, as well as sex slaves in some of our Southern cities. In my area of the country (metropolitan Washington DC), a ring of these "slave importers" was investigated and broken up just a few months ago. Dozens of women and children were found inside two houses in residential neighborhoods - the neighbors had no idea what was going on.

    But to answer your question: No, of course Americans would not have welcomed the British (or any other nationality) to intrude into the USA, whether they were coming on a "humanitarian" mission or not. Our brief national history shows how Americans responded to the British, French and Russians (on the West Coast)and took over a large part of what once was Northern Mexico.

    The Iraqi woman you saw on TV probably speaks for the heartland of regular Iraqis (whether she knew it or not)in that she wanted her country to be free of "invaders" - whether during the Crusades of centuries ago or just 11 days ago. Tonight's news (Dan Rather and Peter Jennings, along with Tom Brokaw an hour later) broadcast photos of young Syrian and Lebanese men in transit to fight in Iraq. Whereas the Shia Muslims think of Najaf and Karbala as their holy city, Baghdad is NOT just a city to Arabs, but holds a place deeply entrenched in their hearts for centuries as they remember that the city was at one time "the soul and heart" of Islam." And, according to those folks, that's worth fighting for.

    Persian
    March 31, 2003 - 05:52 pm
    HAROLD - absolutely! Hopefully, sharing one's opinions, beliefs and thoughts with others encourages them to share with us. But we must also listen - REALLY LISTEN - as we expect others to listen to us. It's definitely a two-way exercise in learning, respect and understanding.

    georgehd
    March 31, 2003 - 09:38 pm
    Did any one see the young Jordanian (I think) woman who was interviewed on TV. She had lived and been educated in the US. She pointed out that right after 9/11, Bush used the term "crusade" to describe the action that needed to be taken by the US. The man has no idea of what this one word means in the Muslim world. He is a born again Christian and I fear that he really believes that he must lead a Crusade.

    I am unfortunately reminded of the time just before the Vietnam war when a colleague of mine who subscribed to leftist newspapers, pointed out to me that we were getting involved in Vietnam, a fact that remained unreported in most US newspapers. He said that our government knew very little about the Vietnamese and their history and as a result we would probably back the wrong regime in that country because we would never believe that a Communist regime might actually be good for a country. We saw the Vietnamese Communists and the Chinese Communists as one threat. In actuality the Vietnamese and Chinese were enemies - whom we drove together when we entered the war there. Our defeat in Vietnam (and I think it was a defeat) and the tremendous division in our country was the direct result of our ignorance of another people.

    One other point that has nothing to do with the Middle East but everything to do with George Bush. Did any of you see the Practice, a TV show that I find extremely interesting. Tonights show was about the death penalty and how John Ashcroft is interfering and influencing states that do not have the death penalty. While the war is going on in Iraq, our political leaders continue to astound me with their extremely conservative program that they want to impose on the US. I am as concerned about this as I am about the war.

    I do not want to turn this into a political discussion, but frankly, for the first time in my seventy years I am afraid of the President of the United States.

    Jonathan
    March 31, 2003 - 10:42 pm
    I have to stop in and tell all of you how much I enjoyed following the discussion. So many good ideas put forward. From everyone...or made available in the many good links. As just one thought-provoking example, I have to think of the confirmation I found in a Muslim link, for an old suspicion of mine...that Paul did something with the teachings of Jesus which resulted in something more than the truth. I ended up with considerable sympathy for the Islamic claim to its greater fidelity to the original, true worship of Allah/God.

    And I would especially like to thank HATS for drawing everyone's attention to the showing of George Eliot's Daniel Deronda on PBS. Last night. And tonight. It didn't take me long to realize that I was watching a very unusual, but, it seemed to me, true depiction of a part of Abraham's Legacy, illustrating the plight of his children in the modern world.

    Monotheism is a grand concept, but, imo, it has proven to be too divisive in history. Perhaps if he had also practiced monogamy, it might have worked. As a patriarch. That's fallen out of favor, it seems to me. The Islamic world needs a few George Eliots. Gwendolen, the heroine, finds herself in purgatory trying to be herself in a patriarchal society, unable to come at self-assurance and opportunity. She can't win at the game.

    And then as part of the Legacy come the land claims. With the children fighting over the will. What I've seen of the inheritance on TV the last week or two, has left me shaking my head over the god-forsaken place. Is it all the result of the Idol-smashing? Is the whole sorry thing...the unending conflict...divine revenge of the gods worshipped by Abraham's anscestors? On whom Abraham turned his back.

    But there he is. The father of us all. With that everlasting bosom, gathering all his children to himself in the end.

    Justin
    April 1, 2003 - 01:10 am
    I have not participated in this discussion because after reading Feiler I found his work trivial. He visits a subject in the guise of a scholar but in truth writes the material of a tourist. I did enjoy the postings however and I am pleased that some of you plan to stay on to discuss A's legacy.

    There is one thought some of you have approached but not treated in any depth. A is a guy whose life preceded the three religions that have adopted him as a role model and as a father figure. He was a reprehensible person who committed innumerable sins. These elements do not blend well.

    He ran out on his responsibilities at home by leaving his old parents to fend for themselves. He was prepared to engage in human sacrifice as others did in his period in history. He tried to kill his own son as a sacrifice. He sent his first born son into the desert with his mother, a servant concubine, to die of thirst. He tells his wife to lie about her relationship to him when she talks to Pharaoh, to protect himself. The man seems spineless. He is a deserter, a murderer, and a liar.

    His behavior is considered sinful today by the three religions that have adopted him yet he is admired as a father figure in all three religions, because he appears to be an early monotheist. It's hard for me understand how a rational person can hope to find anything useful in A as a role model. Would some one like to explain the adoption of A as a role model and father figure for the three major religions, while taking into account his reprehensible behavior. Feiler did not come to terms with this issue at all.

    A's legacy must be what he left us-a history of wrong doing. There must be a better foundation than A upon which to base religious reconciliation. There is one change that might bring about religious reconciliation. Each religion would have to give up the idea that it is the best religion and that its god is the only true god. I fear that will never happen but A and his presence in the three religions will never bring about reconciliation either.

    Persian
    April 1, 2003 - 02:13 am
    JUSTIN - I'd like to respond.

    First, although I, too, found Feiler's work shallow, I didn't have the impression that he "presented himself in the guise of a scholar." On the contrary, one brief glance at the book itself, indicated that the author was presenting comments on his own personal quest for a better understanding of the topic. The lack of citation of substantial source material indicated clearly that the publication was not intended for a scholarly audience, nor did the author expect critical analysis of his work. I read the book in the vein that Feiler was sharing his thoughts and summarizing his interviews with the various individuals with whom he spoke, rather than setting out information for the reader to critique.

    Secondly, although there is certainly plenty of reason to think of Abraham in the manner in which you present him, I think we must look at the events in the sequence of history - the period in which they took place - and that Abraham's OVERALL belief was his dedicated FAITH in God. Through that rock-solid belief, harm would not come to him or his family.

    PARENTS: I don't believe that Abraham deserted his parents in the cold-blooded manner you describe. In the context of the tribal system in place in his homeland (and still there to an extent today, even considering the war in Iraq now), Abraham left his parents knowing that their needs and any emergencies would be attended to by others in the community. It was NOT unusual for a son to relocate; to break away from the central community; to take up land or herds for himself; or as Abraham did, to establish himself elsewhere. In this instance, I believe that Abraham's intention was not to abandon his parents without recourse, but to follow God's plan for him.

    SACRIFICE: Abraham "offered" his son, Isaac (or Muslims believe it was Ishmael)as a sacrifice; he did NOT kill him. God intervened and the boy was spared. Thus, Abraham is NOT a murderer.

    HAGAR & ISHMAEL: When God told Abraham to send Hagar and Ishmael into the desert, Abraham certainly had faith that God would protect them. And He did. It sounds heartless - and indeed it was - to send a vulnerable woman and child into the desert without provision - but, AGAIN, this is an instance of Abraham having FAITH that God would provide. The well of ZamZam, which is the name of the water source which God created for Hagar and Ishmael, and is a major site of the Muslim Haj each year, remains as testimony of Abraham's faith. Again, Abraham is NOT a murderer. It seems to me that by removing Hagar and Ishmael away from Sara's jealousy, God was laying the plan for future nations (through Ishmael).

    LYING: Sara was indeed related to Abraham. She was his half-sister. In contemporary times, this marital relationship sounds repulsive and could be interpreted as incest. However, in Abraham's time, it was not unusual. Not only among the tribes, but among the leadership as well. Several Pharoahs married their close blood relatives. (In contemporary times, it is NOT unusual for first cousins to marry in the Middle East, and in some communities, it is preferred.) Thus, Abraham did NOT lie when he asked Sara to tell Pharoah that she was his sister.

    Whether one believes that Abraham acted foolishly or was spineless is purely a matter of personal interpretation. The points you raise would not be credible in Middle Eastern Arab/Christian or Muslim culture in a discussion of Abraham, since the cultural history and ancient customs are already known, well understood and respected, have been handed down as oral history for centuries.

    georgehd
    April 1, 2003 - 05:47 am
    Once again Mahalia comes through with most insightful comments. Many posts ago, I commented that I thought of Abraham as a fairly ordinary man who had an extraordinary idea for his time. The idea was passed down from generation to generation orally before it was ever written down. The story of his life was probably embellished to include ideas that seemed appropriate and important - again at that time. We really have no concrete evidence of who the man was and no written history that he or those around him created.

    What we do have is thousands of years of scholarship and particularly the findings of the last 100 years. To the extent that we reinterpret the Bible and embellish it with interpretations and modifications that reflect current thinking - to that extent the Bible (Old Testament) is a very ecumenical book. However, if we rely simply on the ancient written word, the Bible becomes stultifying and rigid. One of the nice things about the Book or Torah that I refer to, is that there is commentary about almost every passage. I also mentioned another book some time ago that is extremely detailed in its Biblical analysis, Understanding the Old Testament by Bernhard Anderson. This is a long scholarly work and perhaps too detailed for me. But I can go into the index and find lots of fascinating material about specific topics.

    Mahalia, I would be interested to know if there is an edition of the Koran that also contains contemporary commentary. And also could you please explain the different spelling of the word Koran?

    Persian
    April 1, 2003 - 10:47 am
    GEORGEHD - I would recommend THE HOLY QUR'AN with English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary published by the King Fahd Holy Qur'an Printing Complex, Al-Madinah Al-Munawarah under The Auspices of the Minitry of Hajj and Endowments, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The index and commentary are extensive, including a glossary and transliteration of Arabic words and names.

    Koran is the anglicized spelling of the Arabic Qur'an. Actually, the accent mark should be above the a (but my keyboard does not have that key) with a - (dash) written between the letters r and a.

    Anderson's Understanding the Old Testament is a tresured tool. I also depend on Isaac Asimov's Asimov's Guide to the Bible: Old Testament(Avon Books, 1968). I have the paperback edition and it has traveled all over the world with me. I used it as a teaching tool in China for some of my Chinese students who were descended from Middle Eastern Jewish traders.

    kiwi lady
    April 1, 2003 - 11:31 am
    Justin has missed the point that all three religions worship the same God -it is the path to him which is different. The Christians have Jesus, The Muslims Have Mohammed and the Jews are still waiting for their Messiah and have another path. However God the father is worshipped by all three of us. I think all three religions acknowledge this.

    The points you made were very valid Mahlia. We have to remember that Abraham was of an ancient people- we can't look at him as we do ourselves today.

    Carolyn

    Jonathan
    April 1, 2003 - 12:02 pm
    Justin

    Just so. It put me off, too, when I realized that Abraham started out by destroying the gods of others. The ancestral gods. The 'legacy' is dubious enough. I can see where you might feel compelled to say that 'the emperor has no clothes.' But patricide? I look forward to seeing you in Hell...

    georgehd
    April 1, 2003 - 12:18 pm
    Carolyn, you point out the religious paths to God are different - the Christians have Jesus, the Muslims have Mohammed and the Jews are waiting. I beg to differ. Jews are not waiting for a path to God. We approach God directly - this was Abraham's gift to mankind.

    Mahalia, do Muslims approach God through Mohammed? I did not think so. Muslims, I thought, also approached God directly.

    I do not want to step on anyones toes or beliefs - what one believes is what one chooses to believe and I cannot argue with that. However, I do want to point out that I do not think of God as a Father. I do not think of God with any human attributes and this is a difficult concept to understand. Jews have no image of God - in fact we are forbidden to have images of God in the Ten Commandments.

    As far as the Messiah is concerned - yes, some Jews do believe that a Messiah will come and peace will reign all over the earth. The Human Species will all be saved. While I can hope that someday this might happen, I do not think it will happen any time soon. One of the problems we have (that we have not addressed in our discussion) is that there are other religions in the world that do not claim Abraham as an ancestor. Is our God, their God also? What if they do not believe in God?

    I have some other thoughts but I must leave for now so I will post this as is.

    kiwi lady
    April 1, 2003 - 12:47 pm
    Perhaps I could not explain myself properly. I apologise if I have offended anyone. I would like to point out that we have no images of God - I myself do not imagine him as a human being.

    Perhaps I should have said paths to worship God. We all have different rituals in our worship.

    I have no idea if the God other religions worship is our God I only know what I was taught. I did not know there were any other religions which had only one God except for the Islamic,Christian and Jewish religion. Most of the religions I have studied have more than one God. Some of them have no God and could be described as a form of humanism. I think maybe the Great Spirit worshipped by the American Indians could have been our God. If we believe that all mankind began in the East even if people spread over the globe they may have carried the concept of one God with them. There is one school of thought that everyone is descended from the 12 tribes of Israel. I really do not know and doubt whether we ever will.

    Carolyn

    georgehd
    April 1, 2003 - 01:10 pm
    Carolyn, I am back and certainly not offended in any way. I think it is terribly difficult to have a discussion about one's beliefs because of the fear of stepping on someone else's toes. One of the things that I have liked about this discussion is the openness and frankness that each of us has been able to maintain. It is a shame that we cannot meet face to face.

    I am also wondering if a discussion of world religions on Senior Net would be approptiate. We would have to find the right text or texts and more particularly the right leaders or participants. For instance I do not feel qualified to represent Judaism as I have not studied it in any great depth. I would think of a course or discussion that would take a number of months to complete = one month would not do justice to the subject.

    I have added the Washington Post as one of the Easy Links (top right of explorer). I am finding their op ed pieces very good. washingtonpost.com

    kiwi lady
    April 1, 2003 - 01:36 pm
    George I am not sure if the idea would be good or not. Some of the discussions in the Religious folders are very acrimonious. There are some very rude and intolerant posters. Its such a joy to come in here where we can be honest and objective without fear of being abused.

    Carolyn

    Ann Alden
    April 1, 2003 - 01:52 pm
    So, should we shorten the header? Use "Abraham's Legacy" as our title and be put in the "Ongoing Discussions" folder? Is there such a folder.

    I agree with Carolyn that probably we should just continue here with our discussion where no one seems put off with honest feelings and opinions.

    The latest link is an eye-opener, isn't it? When I was reading a book about Russia(fiction) once, the thing that stood out for me was the openness with which people discussed politics in that country before the revolution. And, when you are in England, the same thing seems to be prevalent. As brash as we(US) seem to be, we are reluctant to freely discuss our feelings about government and country when it is in the "mess" that it is in, at the moment. Well, not everyone. I do remember that many discussed VietNam and marched against it.

    A question: I remember a lady, wife of the leader of South Vietnam?, coming here and appearing at a Congressional meeting, begging us to do something before the Chinese and North Vietnamese took over. She cried that the French were desserting them in their hour of need. Is my memory faulty here?

    Ann Alden
    April 1, 2003 - 02:31 pm
    Here's a good link which we might want to put up in the header.

    BriefIslam GuideIncluded at the site is the whole book, "A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam".

    BaBi
    April 1, 2003 - 03:27 pm
    George, I was interested in our comment that you do not feel qualified to represent Judaism, as you have not studied it in any depth. Conversely, I do not feel qualified to represent Christianity, though I have studied it, because some of the conclusions I have come to are not necessarily in agreement with the opinions held by the majority of Christians.

    I guess we'll just have to offer our own opinions, and the reason for them, and hope someone else finds them helpful. ...Babi

    Persian
    April 1, 2003 - 04:15 pm
    I think we are doing a splendid job just representing ourselves. Throughout the ABRAHAM discussion no one seemed to feel that we needed "experts" of the three religions. We were all learning as we progressed in reading the book and discussing what we learned.

    GEORGE - your comments are astute enough for me to enjoy your posts immensely. I don't need you to be a Rabbi, just an interesting participants with a solid desire to keep this discussion moving along in a harmonius manner. "Harmonius" is the key: those of us who have particpated previously in some of the other discussions which garner attack, ridicule and sarcasm have been truly refreshed by this group.

    No, Muslims do NOT approach God through the Prophet Mohamed. It's a "direct connect," individual to God. There are no clergy within Islam; no priests or ministers. Imams are generally men with a strong understanding of Islamic theology, although in the rural villages, they may just be very pious.

    There also is the caution within Islam that prohibits "images" of God, the Prophets, Angels, etc. I remember when my husband (an Egyptian Muslim) first saw pictures of Jesus, he was astounded. He kept saying "who is that?" When I answered his questions, he was confused even more: "but that is NOT what a Jew of his time looked like. The person in the picture has blue eyes and white skin! His nose is too long. You are lying to me!" It took me a long time to make him undestand that the common depictions of Jesus in Europe and the USA are "interpretations." Finally, when my husband happened to see a picture by a North African artist, he said "now that could be an interpretation of the Prophet Jesus. He looks as he should look." (Dark hair and eyes, Mediterranean rugged complexion, and a "proper" nose.) "But he should not be in that picture. It is forbidden!" To this day, my husband is uncomfortable with Christmas cards depicting Jesus and Mary, angels, the Nativity, etc. I have a wooden crucifix, which belonged to my French Catholic grandmother, which I consider to be a keepsake. My husband considers it an abomination.

    I seem to recall that Ella offered us an opportunity to continue in this forum if we wished and simply suggested that since we've finished reading the book, we now refer to our discussion as "Abraham's Legacy." Sounds good to me and I don't think we need to relocate.

    ANNE - yes, indeed, Americans are often hesitant to speak out about the details of politics - (I don't mean taking to the streets with signs that simply say STOP THE WAR) - unless that happens to be their profession. But I think we also have to understand (not like or accept necessarily, but at least understand) that to Europeans (and many others in the world) Americans are extremely naieve about global issues. "Uninformed" may be too harsh a word, but in a country (USA) where for many years people have refused to support foreign language study in the schools ("don't talk to me unless you can speak English I can understand") or a better appreciation of other cultures, their people, religions, etc., we have given the impression that our country and its populace prefer to remain isolated from the world.

    However, as the American population changes dramatically and more people from other countries take up residency, I'm confident that the dynamics of "cultural global expansion" will find a place in the USA. Some Americans may not like the changes, but that's life.

    Recently, my grandson told me that he's learned over the past few years to say Merry Christmas in 34 languages. I teased him and asked "tell me Merry Christmas in Hebrew." His response: "Grandma, don't be dumb. You don't say Merry Christmas in Hebrew. The best I can do for you for a holiday greeting is Hannukah Shalom or Pesach Shalom. Or I can wish you Shabat Shalom, since it's almost sundown."

    kiwi lady
    April 1, 2003 - 04:56 pm
    Mahlia there is a description of Jesus in the Bible. Nothing like his pictures. He was very ordinary looking someone you would not look twice at passing on the road. Our pictures are romanticised. I cannot remember the exact words. It also said he had a sad countenance. He probably had olive skin, dark hair and strong features. Mohammed is right the pictures are wrong.

    Carolyn

    georgehd
    April 1, 2003 - 08:01 pm
    I continue to be amazed at the similarities between Islam and Judaism. Judaism has no ministers or priests - though there were priests in ancient Israel. A Rabbi is a teacher, a person of learning. There is no hierarchy within Judaism. There is, I think a hierarchy in Jewish law and Jewish courts. I know very little about Jewish courts.

    It is interesting that in the US, rabbis are often called men of the cloth along with priests and ministers. Rabbis, however, do not wear special clothing.

    The idea of saying Merry Christmas in Hebrew is wonderful and your grandson's answer is fabulous. The pressures on non Christians at Christmas time in the US is great. I personally enjoy that time of year and enjoy Christmas music - but how do my children explain to my grandchildren why we do not celebrate Christmas. As a young boy, I remember that my mother had a Christmas tree in the house, I suppose so that my brother and I would not feel deprived. We did celebrate Hanukah - getting presents for eight nights was better than presents on one day. I mention this because I do not feel that the majority of a population ever quite understands what it means to be a minority. Similarly we in America do not really understand what it means to live in a small backward country. We assume that our way of life must be better; but that assumption is false.

    While I am musing in this vein - I am struck by what seems to me to be a real desire on the part of the men actually fighting in Iraq to act in humane ways. There does seem to be a reaching out to the people - this of course may be the biased view presented by imbedded reporters but I suspect not. There is a respect for human life. I think that we did learn something in Vietnam. Somehow I do not feel the same way about our political leadership.

    Persian
    April 1, 2003 - 10:22 pm
    GEORGEHD - I think your comments about the perceived reaching out of American troops to the civilians in Iraq is quite on point. Many of the soldiers are extremely young, never been away from home before (let alone outside the USA)and have been well trained, not only in the rigors of war, but also in the humanitarian aspects of what to do, how to behave, what responsibility they have individually and collectively and, of course, if their own lives are in danger what they must do. Pretty heavy responsibilities for teenagers and those in their early 20's. Regardless of the civilian loss of life, depicted repeatedly in Middle Eastern news, our soldiers are not butchers, nor take pleasure in taking human life.

    There was a picture on the front page of the Washington Post a couple of days ago of an Army doctor sitting cross-legged in the dirt with eyes closed, shoulders hunched over and head bowed. He had plastic gloves on his hands and was holding a tiny Iraqi child - thin bare feet and legs dangling over his arm. My heart lurched - for the child AND doctor.

    Yes, indeed, there is great similarity between Judaism and Islam. Since the Jewish branch of my family are Sephardic, perhaps they are more in tune with the Middle Eastern customs and culture than that of Ashkenazi Jews. I remember as a child being told each year that although we had a Chritmas tree, the origin of the tree inside the house, festively decorated with lights, was an adopted pagan custom. More or less like Dec. 25th was not the actual birthdate of Jesus. Our family has always been much more involved in the multicultural aspect of holidays, "layering" as my friends called it. I will never forget my then teenage son (now a Christian Chaplain!) saying to a group of Russian Jewish immigrents "OK, listen up guys, we do NOT drink vodka for Passover. We drink wine!"

    Indeed there is a hierarchy in Judaic and Islamic (sharia)law. In the latter, arguments are heard and decisions made by a collection of "learned men" - not a "jury of one's peers - but individuals who know sharia deeply and all its convolutions.

    Ann Alden
    April 2, 2003 - 06:12 am
    Persian,

    Maybe if we could get the leaders out of the loop, the people of the feuding countries could solve their problems without going to war. But, most people would want to look to a more learned person to get problems solved. That's where the Imams and Rabbis come in, isn't it? As to our sparse knowledge of the Middle East, conversely, they really have a warped view of us also.

    What if the oil weren't there, in Iraq, would this be happening? And along with it, the misunderstanding of the two cultures?

    The link that I posted was only a suggestion so that anyone who needed a reference for Islam, it would be there and they wouldn't have to "google" for it!

    Persian
    April 2, 2003 - 10:02 am
    ANN - yes, indeed, it is a two-way street to understanding the people of the Middle East and their comprehension of the West. However, a sizable number of individuals in several Middle Eastern countries (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt) have been educated in Europe, Canada and the USA. Many are successful professionals in their chosen fields with high levels of responsibility in their societies. They have a better understanding of Western culture than individuals in rural areas who may never have interacted with Westerners. The harsh rhetoric that we've seen and heard in the news in the past few months (accelerated in the past 12 days) is a propaganda tool which, given the threat of force in some areas by dictatorial governments (and their militia as in Iraq)overwhelms common sense or a more moderate understanding of the West.

    On an individual basis, it is not the American people per se which Middle Easterners dislike - many are strongly attracted towards the friendliness and openness of Amerians! - but it is the mixed messages (especially those dealing with morals)that confuse them. In the USA, the random homicides throughout the country, easily accepted pornography, high divorce rate, abused and abandoned women and children, enormous consumption of drugs and hypocrisy in politics have caused a bitter dislike of American culture as a whole, NOT individual Americans. Really, not too different from what Americans dislike about our country!

    Speaking of oil, I've always wondered why the USA has not been more forceful in seeking oil on our own continent. I understand (and appreciate) the threat to the northern wildlife refuge and the possible contamination to the natural beauty of the region, but overall, I wonder which is more important: our continued dependence on foreign oil or a better understanding of how we can obtain the supply we need in a manner that will not unduly harm our continent, its natural beauty, wildlife and populace. IMO, it is high time we explored the latter more fully and put the "oil barons" on notice that we will not participate any longer in behavior which leads, ultimately, to war or a heightened sense of distrust among nations.

    GingerWright
    April 2, 2003 - 10:09 am
    Persian, Our oil wells are pumping but we are selling it overseas as I understand it. Alaska does I think have much oil. Me thinks it is mostly GREED.

    BaBi
    April 2, 2003 - 12:26 pm
    I am so proud of our soldiers when I see them doing all they can to help and protect Iraqi non-combatants. The picture of the soldier from California carrying a wounded Iraqi soldier to safety moved me almost to tears.

    I was also gratified to hear this afternoon the report from one of the "human shield" protesters, that what he found in Iraq was not at all what he expected. He talked to an Iraqi taxi driver who made it plain he was not pro-Saddam. The driver told the would-be protester that Saddam pocketed oil revenues for himself, and political dissidents were killed, along with their families. I hope the other 'human shields' quickly learned their error and departed while they could. I honor the fact that these people were willing to place themselves in danger for their cause, and I would be sorry to hear that their misplaced zeal had resulted in any deaths ..Babi

    Ella Gibbons
    April 3, 2003 - 10:26 am
    MANY THANKS TO ALL OF YOU WHO PARTICIPATED IN OUR BOOK DISCUSSION! IT WAS ONE TO REMEMBER AND SUCH A WONDERFUL GROUP!