|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Israel and the land
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
In a previous thread we had:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
The Theology of the Land is that when enough Jews live in the land roughly (and inaccurately) called The Holy Land, Jesus Christ will come and rule over all the world and all the Jews will accept him as the messiah.
Thank - I've never heard it expressed like that, and it's certainly not my understanding of what the prophecies are getting at. What's clear to me is:
1) God promised the land to Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob
2) This promise is unconditional
3) God has prophesied the return of many to the land before the Parousia.
Therefore:
1) The return of Jews to control of the land is an indicator that the Parousia is significantly closer - we could have been sure that it wouldn't have happened before then
2) Actively opposing the presence of the Jewish people in the land is to oppose the revealed will of God
Which - before anyone complains - doesn't mean that Israel has the right to do whatever it likes in the land, but it does create a presumption in favour of Israel, and certainly makes support for a Palestinian 'right of return' - which would end the Jewish nature of the state - a mistake.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Well, how the long ranger expresses it is indeed the view of some, particularly US fundamentalists. I'll grant that it's not the dominant view among most UK evangelicals.
I must admit, though, that whenever this topic comes up my initial reaction is ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
Why? Because it's a gigantic red-herring.
The state of Israel, for better or worse, exists. I, for one, wouldn't want to see it snuffed out or invaded by some of its nastier neighbours, such as Syria. But I also wish the religious right wouldn't give it such uncritical support and set eschatological timetables by the whole thing.
I'd much rather see people devote their efforts to brokering some kind, any kind, of peace-deal, rapprochement between Israel and the Palestinians.
Clinging on to arcane fantasies based on over-literal interpretations dreamt up by 19th century crack-pots and theological light-weights doesn't do anyone any good.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Well I can't really enter this conversation given that I don't hold a Theology of the Land.
I don't believe that God promises land to any one tribe, people or country. So the idea that you can use some theological or distant historical promise as a reason to turf people out of their homes is utter nonsense. Indeed, there is a very real danger of hatred and racism wherever this happens - see Bosnia for another very dangerous Theology of the Land.
As a Christian, I don't believe that there is any holy land as I don't believe there are any nations or tribes or peoples before God. If I believe that God is everywhere, he is as much 'in the land' where I store my garbage as in the sad old piles of stones in Old Jerusalem.
We invest religious meaning in places which is entirely unfounded and unnecessary. We then build all kinds of spurious theological structures - without properly taking account that a Theology of the Land is entirely the opposite of the Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus Christ said he was bringing in.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
But the Jews were already given what they were promised, and the whole world with them- Jesus Christ. This "theology of the land" in a Christian context is all hokum.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
What's clear to me is:
1) God promised the land to Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob
I think you can only say that's "clear" if you adopt a very uncritical approach. What's clear to me is that people who were settled in the Land alleged that the land had been promised by God to their forebears. And they had the recently edited written condensation of a number of oral traditions to prove it.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
Modern Israel and the occupied territories were stolen from the previous inhabitants, who now live as refugees or second-class citizens. No amount of specious exegesis or dodgy theology can make that right.
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
In a previous thread we had:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
The Theology of the Land is that when enough Jews live in the land roughly (and inaccurately) called The Holy Land, Jesus Christ will come and rule over all the world and all the Jews will accept him as the messiah.
Thank - I've never heard it expressed like that, and it's certainly not my understanding of what the prophecies are getting at. What's clear to me is:
1) God promised the land to Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob
2) This promise is unconditional
I've never even heard of the "Theology of the Land," but then again my tradition is not much for apocalyptic thinking.
Even if we accept that the State of Israel fulfills some biblical prophecy, and even though I won't argue with you that Jewish and Christian tradition hold that the territory of modern Israel is (part of) the land promised by God to the Jews, I'm not going to use biblical language to turn a blind eye to violations of human rights. Doing so is intellectually lazy and ethically repugnant.
Nor should it give the nation of Israel carte blanche to annex other lands to which it claims to be entitled by God's covenant. They don't get to march into Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq just to "reclaim what's theirs."
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
1) God promised the land to Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob
How is 'descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob' defined? AIUI, both Jews and modern Palestinians are equally the genetic descendants of the people who lived in Palestine in, say, the first century AD.
Does 'Theology of the Land' mean that Palestinian Arabs are just as entitled to 'own' Palestine as the Jews?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
1) God promised the land to Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob
How is 'descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob' defined? AIUI, both Jews and modern Palestinians are equally the genetic descendants of the people who lived in Palestine in, say, the first century AD.
Does 'Theology of the Land' mean that Palestinian Arabs are just as entitled to 'own' Palestine as the Jews?
No, because you also have to factor in 2 things:
1) Isaac is the son of promise - NOT Ishmael, as the Qu'ran wrongly has it.
2) The Exodus to the Promised Land was under the Mosaic covenant revealed by YHWH to the children of Jacob/Israel, again, NOT the sons of Ishmael.
[ 17. May 2012, 14:25: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Are you saying that:
1.) the people living in modern Palestine are not genetically descended from the people living in first-century Palestine,
or
2.) the people living in first-century Palestine were descendants of Ishmael, not Isaac?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
One ridiculous thing about this whole argument is that it ignores the presence of Arab Christians in the land.
And this whole 'my bible says x and the koran says y therefore I am right and you are wrong' is part of the problem.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
One ridiculous thing about this whole argument is that it ignores the presence of Arab Christians in the land.
And this whole 'my bible says x and the koran says y therefore I am right and you are wrong' is part of the problem.
And that's not even remotely the most ridiculous part of the argument.
"Aw, gee, sorry that we cut off the water supply to your village in order to construct this swimming pool, and you can't visit your father in the hospital because there's a giant wall in the way and we won't give you a pass, but God gave us the land 3000 years ago. Says so right here in the Bible."
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
But the Jews were already given what they were promised, and the whole world with them- Jesus Christ. This "theology of the land" in a Christian context is all hokum.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) This. The whole problem with such a theology is that it suggests there is some fulfilment of God's promises other than in Jesus. Which should be a big red flag right away.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Yep. The whole argument rests on a materialistic interpretation of the 'land' and the 'promise'. It is IMO a spiritual reality: the Church is the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and we are both 'now' and 'not yet' living in the land.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Trickydicky
Shipmate
# 16550
|
Posted
Steve H. What he said.
Some of this 'let's fill Israel with Jews' stiff seems to be saying 'let's force God's hand'.
Basic concepts like, well, justice and fairness seem to be missed. the Palestinians and Jews are not perfect. they're just human beings, making a mess of it. like we all do. I am more sympathetic to the Palestinians (having been there) simply because the injustices they face are much greater.
--------------------
If something's worth doing, its worth doing badly. (G K Chesterton)
Posts: 57 | From: Greater Manchester | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
Modern Israel and the occupied territories were stolen from the previous inhabitants, who now live as refugees or second-class citizens. No amount of specious exegesis or dodgy theology can make that right.
You forget the United Nations role in this. And the separation of the other major part of Palestine from what is Israel today. That is Jordan. Palestine = Israel + Jordan + a few little bits of other modern countries. It becomes complicated when we remember that Jordan had annexed the West Bank before Israel did.
I can't recall the term, but there is a concept of acceptance of boundaries between countries, essentially to accept the facts on the ground and to quit fighting over them. There are many examples in parallel.
This is sort of the case with Greece and Turkey since the expulsions of Greeks from Anatolia in the 1920s, and Turks from what is now Greece.
It is also the case more clearly with the expulsion of Loyalists from New York state in the USA in the 1780s with the expropriation of their lands - I actually know the specific land taken from my family.
We have the annexation of Mexican lands in the 1830s by the USA, and the right of return seems to be exercised informally by Hispanic immigrants. Hawaii is another example. The Philippines managed to avoid planned annexation. We could talk more generally of the dispossession of the First Nations in North America by the French then English, and then by my country of Canada.
Yes, the Jews are special because of the OT, and because of religion. But the actual facts of borders, people being dispossessed, and fairness are pretty common. The discussion probably becomes unresolvable if there is not acceptance that at least some of the Palestinians are going to be permanent losers of land, homes, farms, etc., regardless of their lengthy claims to them. Just like all those in history who've been similarly overcome by another country or power.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
There is very little argument over the 1967 borders (the so-called 'green line'). But there is a lot of Israel outside of the 1967 green line, including East Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank - which are internationally accepted to be occupied land.
I'm not sure this is relevant to the point about the Theology of the Land in its general sense, because one could probably argue that 'God gave' the Jews land on both sides of the Jordan.
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
Modern Israel and the occupied territories were stolen from the previous inhabitants, who now live as refugees or second-class citizens. No amount of specious exegesis or dodgy theology can make that right.
You forget the United Nations role in this. And the separation of the other major part of Palestine from what is Israel today. That is Jordan. Palestine = Israel + Jordan + a few little bits of other modern countries. It becomes complicated when we remember that Jordan had annexed the West Bank before Israel did.
I can't recall the term, but there is a concept of acceptance of boundaries between countries, essentially to accept the facts on the ground and to quit fighting over them. There are many examples in parallel.
This is sort of the case with Greece and Turkey since the expulsions of Greeks from Anatolia in the 1920s, and Turks from what is now Greece.
It is also the case more clearly with the expulsion of Loyalists from New York state in the USA in the 1780s with the expropriation of their lands - I actually know the specific land taken from my family.
We have the annexation of Mexican lands in the 1830s by the USA, and the right of return seems to be exercised informally by Hispanic immigrants. Hawaii is another example. The Philippines managed to avoid planned annexation. We could talk more generally of the dispossession of the First Nations in North America by the French then English, and then by my country of Canada.
Yes, the Jews are special because of the OT, and because of religion. But the actual facts of borders, people being dispossessed, and fairness are pretty common. The discussion probably becomes unresolvable if there is not acceptance that at least some of the Palestinians are going to be permanent losers of land, homes, farms, etc., regardless of their lengthy claims to them. Just like all those in history who've been similarly overcome by another country or power.
What's uncomplicated now is that the government of Israel, while paying lip-service toward a two-state solution, routinely winks at land theft from Palestinians. Not in an abstract "This was once the Palestinian/Transjordan Mandate and now it's Israel" sense - in the "Ali's family has lived in this village for 10 generations and the settlers bulldozed his village, including his house, to build a Jews-only subdivision" sense.
You can't justify that with "that's what theology says" or "We did it 100 years ago to the Mexicans who did it to the Aztecs who did it to the etc. etc. etc." or "Arabs have done bad stuff too." If the activity of the settlers doesn't bother you, there's something deeply wrong with your moral compass.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
]What's uncomplicated now is that the government of Israel, while paying lip-service toward a two-state solution, routinely winks at land theft from Palestinians. Not in an abstract "This was once the Palestinian/Transjordan Mandate and now it's Israel" sense - in the "Ali's family has lived in this village for 10 generations and the settlers bulldozed his village, including his house, to build a Jews-only subdivision" sense.
You can't justify that with "that's what theology says" or "We did it 100 years ago to the Mexicans who did it to the Aztecs who did it to the etc. etc. etc." or "Arabs have done bad stuff too." If the activity of the settlers doesn't bother you, there's something deeply wrong with your moral compass.
Ignoring the comments about my internal moral navigational equipment.
The activity of all parties bothers me, though I have a little more emphasis on the legitimacy of the country of Israel than you may. I have noted that (this may or may not be you) many who talk about the post-1967 war annexations of territory are also soft on the pre-1967 borders, and press the issue that Palestinians (who are are not the same as Arabs) have also been dispossessed within the borders of the UN sanctioned state of Israel.
I have difficulty with what appears to be a concern for the Palestinians that is not also expressed for the Jews. I find it imbalanced in general (again this is a general comment, not directed at anyone specific). I think the only solution will be for the acceptance that Jordan is Palestine, and for both Israel and Jordan to contribute territory to a Palestinian state. All countries must agree to the borders. No sensible government would unilaterally renounce its best bargaining tool without that at minimum. Thus, until the hostile nations that surround Israel agree, it won't go. The alternative is to have Palestinians inhabit a variety of countries, much as the Kurds do.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
Concern for the Palestinians is usually expressed by hand-wringing or the application of small amounts of explosive. Concern for the Israelis with nuclear bombs and tanks. Oh and vetoes of anything other than unconditional praise in any international tribunal with teeth.
Address that imbalance and I might just start caring about the theoretical legitimacy of Israel.
I am no anti-Semite, but I am a fervent anti-Zionist. God loves all of his creation equally: that is the primary datum, nothing else.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
@no_prophet - a pretty stupid suggestion, albeit one that isn't entirely novel.
.
The truth is that several million Palestinians live in historic Palestine and there are several more in the diaspora. You can't just impose a country upon them and think the problem will just go away. They are never, ever going to agree to lands which they have owned for generations being taken. In fact, the presence of Israel (which was created, let us not forget) by literally destroying existing villages) has made the inhabitants of East Jerusalem and the West Bank even less likely to agree to any peace settlement that involves a further permanent loss of land.
As I said, everyone agrees to a negotiation based on the 1967 borders with agreement on Jerusalem and the refugees. Even Israel agrees that these are the substantive issues, yet refuses to actually implement it. In a sense, that is entirely understandable, because any peace plan would involve Israel giving up land and dismantling the settlements. There is no political will to do this when there is such a massive religio-political constituency in the USA which supports the expansion of Israel at the expense of the Palestinians.
For information, there are four sets of Palestinians inside the historic Palestine. First there are the Arab citizens of Israel who decided to throw their lot in with the Israeli state. Second there are the residents of East Jerusalem - who remain inside Jerusalem but have no national status because they refuse to participate with the occupying power in the disputed territories. Third there are the West Bank Palestinians - some still live in their historic villages, but some are refugees from other part of 1967 Israel. Finally there are the Gazan Palestinians who are largely descended from the refugees from the rest of Israel.
Immediately outside of historic Palestine there are a lot more refugees living in camps in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. Many of these came from villages inside 1967 Israel.
They're all Arabs.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I agree. But when there are no reasonable suggestions, everything is stupid. The problems go back generations, and will continue for generations.
After discussions like this, I always end up with useless platitudes, like "I'm the side of the children, the ones that all the adults will step on so they can throttle the other group" and "pox on both their houses". We might as well hope for space aliens to come and impose a settlement, or the second coming.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
]What's uncomplicated now is that the government of Israel, while paying lip-service toward a two-state solution, routinely winks at land theft from Palestinians. Not in an abstract "This was once the Palestinian/Transjordan Mandate and now it's Israel" sense - in the "Ali's family has lived in this village for 10 generations and the settlers bulldozed his village, including his house, to build a Jews-only subdivision" sense.
You can't justify that with "that's what theology says" or "We did it 100 years ago to the Mexicans who did it to the Aztecs who did it to the etc. etc. etc." or "Arabs have done bad stuff too." If the activity of the settlers doesn't bother you, there's something deeply wrong with your moral compass.
The activity of all parties bothers me, though I have a little more emphasis on the legitimacy of the country of Israel than you may. I have noted that (this may or may not be you) many who talk about the post-1967 war annexations of territory are also soft on the pre-1967 borders, and press the issue that Palestinians (who are are not the same as Arabs) have also been dispossessed within the borders of the UN sanctioned state of Israel.
Pardon my French, but that's horseshit. The first refuge of scoundrels on the pro-settler side in these arguments is to equate any criticism of Israeli policies or the actions of the settlers with anti-semitism and "denial of Israel's right to exist."
Nothing can be further from the truth, and I don't give a dog's balls about your anecdotes about other critics of the settlements and their supposed "softness" on the question of the pre-1967 borders.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Christianity has spiritualised away 'the land' but the biblical references to it are only really capable of a materialist interpretation.
Only if you ignore chunks of the New Testament.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Christianity has spiritualised away 'the land' but the biblical references to it are only really capable of a materialist interpretation.
Only if you ignore chunks of the New Testament.
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. Colossians 3:11
Just a start.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
In a previous thread we had:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
The Theology of the Land is that when enough Jews live in the land roughly (and inaccurately) called The Holy Land, Jesus Christ will come and rule over all the world and all the Jews will accept him as the messiah.
Thank - I've never heard it expressed like that, and it's certainly not my understanding of what the prophecies are getting at. What's clear to me is:
1) God promised the land to Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob
2) This promise is unconditional
3) God has prophesied the return of many to the land before the Parousia.
Therefore:
1) The return of Jews to control of the land is an indicator that the Parousia is significantly closer - we could have been sure that it wouldn't have happened before then
2) Actively opposing the presence of the Jewish people in the land is to oppose the revealed will of God
Which - before anyone complains - doesn't mean that Israel has the right to do whatever it likes in the land, but it does create a presumption in favour of Israel, and certainly makes support for a Palestinian 'right of return' - which would end the Jewish nature of the state - a mistake.
There are some serious logical slips and sideswipes occurring in here (and by saying this I don't mean to criticise you personally in your setting out of the logic).
Is the promise of the land a promise of exclusive ownership and possession?
Why does return to the land involve control of the land?
Why equate opposing Jewish domination with opposing Jewish presence (it's pretty rare to encounter, in the West at least, a positive assertion that Jews should actually leave)?
How would the presence of Palestinians affect the 'Jewish' nature of the State? First and foremost, people are Jewish, not abstract institutions.
I find "theology of the land" arguments unconvincing precisely because they are so simplistic and paper over all the cracks, or set up straw man opponents. The idea, for instance, that people are opposing a Jewish presence is nonsense if we're talking about people in the West who are opposing the current means by which Israel operates.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
The first refuge of scoundrels on the pro-settler side in these arguments is to equate any criticism of Israeli policies or the actions of the settlers with anti-semitism and "denial of Israel's right to exist."
Indeed, and it irritates the heck out of me as well.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Pardon my French, but that's horseshit. The first refuge of scoundrels on the pro-settler side in these arguments is to equate any criticism of Israeli policies or the actions of the settlers with anti-semitism and "denial of Israel's right to exist."
Nothing can be further from the truth, and I don't give a dog's balls about your anecdotes about other critics of the settlements and their supposed "softness" on the question of the pre-1967 borders.
No. I won't pardon your french, being indirectly referenced as a scoundrel, nor at this time, your prior comment about my moral compass. Keep yourself civil, sir or madam, or take me to Hell. I think I have been patient enough now, and I ask you please to stop this.
I am neither pro nor against anyone. This is unsolvable problem and has been for many years. I refuse to side with either. I find that the tendency is in general to lean now toward pro-Palestinian. Nothing more. It was more pro-Israel in the past. We have very few of either group involved where I live, and I do not know personally anyone with significant stakes in the game. Perhaps naively, I have felt that there is something missing with a problem that has been in existence for so long.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
The problem is that unless you base your argument on the accepted International Law and human rights, you are left resorting to cold and bland statements. Suggesting that several million people should be moved out from lands they have lived in for generations is not only a violation of international law, it implies that the people who live there have no rights or opinions worth listening to.
The situation is far from ideal, but the compromise has already been made by the Palestinians, in that they have consented (albeit by force) to the creation of Israel on their lands. Why should they compromise further based on the opinions of people thousands of miles away?
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Christianity has spiritualised away 'the land' but the biblical references to it are only really capable of a materialist interpretation.
Only if you ignore chunks of the New Testament.
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. Colossians 3:11
Just a start.
And this is relevant to this debate how precisely? The claim of the Jews to the Land is based on the Old Testament, which is unambiguously based on the idea of a particular people chosen by God and given that particular piece of land.
Actually it is relevant, in that it abolished the right of Palestinian Christians to claim the status of Jews in order to claim a piece of the land. But given that most of them have left, leaving it mainly as Muslims who base their claim to the land on
a) force
b) descent from Ismail
who are at the core of the problem. Problem in the sense of providing a reason - sometimes abused - for the severe security measures that Israel has resorted to following the suicide attacks in the heart of her cities. As someone who visited prior to the first Intifada, before then there was easy access for all to all parts of the land. The present wall etc have occurred as a result of actions of [the leaders of] the Palestinians.
I have to admit this is on my list, along with the issue of homosexual practice, of doctrines which I wish weren't in the bible, as it would be far more comfortable to 'go with the flow'. But as someone who has this strange habit of expecting that when God makes a promise, He'll keep it, I have to extend that belief to His relations with the people of the Mosaic covenant as well. YMMV
Widening the historical perspective somewhat, it's also worth pointing out the example of the Germans expelled from Konigsberg, the Sudetenland and western Poland after WWII. This occurred at precisely the same time as the departure of many Arabs from within the pre-67 borders. At the same time about the same number of Jews came from Arab countries. There is no doubt that the Arab refugees could have been absorbed by the surrounding Arab countries in the same way as those expelled Germans were absorbed by Germany.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Sigh, this is where the Theology of the Land gets us: ethnic cleansing becomes a policy that is mandated by God. If it is a promise from God, it is a stupid, cruel, heartless, racist and horrible promise. Given I don't believe that God has favourites, and that he is not like that, I can only conclude that understanding is false.
There have been 70 years for the Palestinian refugees to be absorbed by surrounding countries, it hasn't happened yet, many are still living in unsuitable refugee camps.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Yes and no. Leaving to one side the issue of the extent to which the New Covenant fulfils and interprets the Old for the moment, the post-WWII population movements in Europe and inextricably linked to those of Israel-Palestine at the same time: I remember I think Robert Fisk interviewing an Arab family who had fled Haifa after 1949 and he discovered, after much digging, that their home had been occupied by Jewish survivors of the Holocaust who had been thrown out of their home in southern Poland by a Polish family who had been forced to leave Lvov/Lviv/Lwow in what had been eastern Poland but which was now western Ukraine to make way for a Ukrainian family who in turn had been forcibly relocated by Stalin from eastern Ukraine to make way for a Russian family...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Ender's Shadow: leaving it mainly as Muslims who base their claim to the land on
a) force
b) descent from Ismail
No, they claim it on the basis that they have lived there continuously for hundreds of years.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Given I don't believe that God has favourites,
Unfortunately that's what it says He DOES have:
quote:
6 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession. 7 The Lord did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. 8 But it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath he swore to your ancestors that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. 9 Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments.
Deut 7:6-9
It's at this point my evangelical background comes out: I would argue strongly that either we take what the bible says seriously - in the sense of not running away from the bits we don't like - or we have to admit that we really don't know anything about God because the bible can't be trusted. In which case religion is
quote:
is just being nice. And a way of keepin' in touch with the neighbours.*
I really don't like this logic, and would much prefer it wasn't there, and do wish that Israel was more generous in its treatment of the West Bank Arabs etc etc, though of course it's only the bad news that we hear; when they get it right, it doesn't hit the headlines.
* The full quote from Terry Pratchett's 'Carpe Jugulum is:
quote:
Now if I'd seen him, really there, really alive, it'd be in me like a fever. If I thought there was some god who really did care two hoots about people, who watched them like a father and cared for them like a mother... well, you wouldn't catch me sayin' things like "There are two sides to every question" and "We must respect other people's beliefs". You wouldn't find me just being ge'rally nice in the hope that it would turn out right in the end, not if that flame was burning in me like an unforgiving sword. And I did say burnin' Mister Oats, 'cos that's what it'd be. You say that people don't burn folks anymore, but that's what true faith would mean, y'see? Sacrificin' your own life, one day at a time, to the flame, declarin' the truth of it, workin' for it, breathing the soul of it. THAT'S religion. Anything else... is just being nice. And a way of keepin' in touch with the neighbours.'
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
You can take it perfectly seriously without having to take it perfectly materialistically, and still be a GLE.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Ender's Shadow: Unfortunately that's what it says He DOES have:
What I do wonder: isn't there a nagging little thought in the back of evangelicals' minds that there's something wrong here?
Some idea that even if you believe that God has promised the land to this people, that you should also stop and ask yourselves: "What about the people who already lived there?"
Some threshold that when Israel trumps the human rights of these people enough, that it will start to make you think: "This should stop"?
Of course, you can try to explain everything away with perfect logic. But you only have to spend a couple of days in the region to see that This Isn't Right.
I can understand that this is a big choice to make. I see that it would mean adjusting your views of 'literacy' of the Bible, and then a lot of things will come crumbling down for you.
But somewhere, no matter how hard some people argue that these are Israel's 'rights', I'm guessing that there must be some seed of doubt in their minds too. That this isn't how God meant it to be.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Well, ES has already admitted that it bothers him, so you're kind of pushing at something of an open door, albeit perhaps one that needs some WD40 on the hinges ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Christianity has spiritualised away 'the land' but the biblical references to it are only really capable of a materialist interpretation.
Only if you ignore chunks of the New Testament.
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. Colossians 3:11
Just a start.
And this is relevant to this debate how precisely? The claim of the Jews to the Land is based on the Old Testament, which is unambiguously based on the idea of a particular people chosen by God and given that particular piece of land.
The problem, ES, is that so many Christians seem ever so willing to back the Jews up on this. Are you restricting this theology of the land to the Jews, or to the numerous Christians (in the USA at least) who see the nation state of Israel as some kind of fulfilment?
Because if it's those Christians we're talking about, surely the New Testament has to come into it.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
6 For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession. 7 The Lord did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. 8 But it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath he swore to your ancestors that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. 9 Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments.
I don't have time to post all the Bible passages, but you forget that this covenant was conditional upon Israel's obedience and faithfulness to God and his Law, which includes BTW caring for the alien and stranger in their midst.
Israel's attachment to the Land did not stop God sending them into exile as punishment for their disobedience. Yes, the Jews returned but they were still bound by the same covenantal stipulations.
[ 18. May 2012, 11:52: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
And this is relevant to this debate how precisely? The claim of the Jews to the Land is based on the Old Testament, which is unambiguously based on the idea of a particular people chosen by God and given that particular piece of land.
It is relevant to this thread, where Christians are falling to using a theology of the land. From a purely objective point of view, the Old Testament claim is nothing so far as justice and international law is concerned. I have, furthermore, no interest in starting a debate about whose holy books are truer.
Yet the case in a Christian context is clear. "Christian Zionism" forgets to center all the promises of God on Jesus, as the New Testament does. The foundation of Jewish identity, indeed the foundation of all human identities, is nothing before the judgment of God revealed in Jesus Christ. "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God." 1 Cor 7:19 "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." Matthew 3:9
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
And this is relevant to this debate how precisely? The claim of the Jews to the Land is based on the Old Testament, which is unambiguously based on the idea of a particular people chosen by God and given that particular piece of land.
I'd start somewhere else. The Deutronomic Covenant is a continuation of the Abrahamic Covenant. Who does the NT say the heirs of Abraham are, and what do they inherit?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
No. I won't pardon your french, being indirectly referenced as a scoundrel, nor at this time, your prior comment about my moral compass. Keep yourself civil, sir or madam, or take me to Hell. I think I have been patient enough now, and I ask you please to stop this.
I didn't indirectly call you anything. You cast aspersions of antisemitism at me with no basis, and I will not stand for it. It's among the ugliest of epithets and does nothing to further a conversation that was, until then, in good faith.
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by no_prophet
quote:
The alternative is to have Palestinians inhabit a variety of countries, much as the Kurds do
And how is that working out for the Kurds, BTW?
The only sensible solution is for the Israelis and Palestinians to share. Odds of that happening, not so good.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Christianity has spiritualised away 'the land' but the biblical references to it are only really capable of a materialist interpretation.
Only if you ignore chunks of the New Testament.
Jews mainly DO ignre the New testament. It has nothing to do with them, in their view. So they interpret THEIR scriptures differently from those Christians who have co-opted it into their religion and see fit to change its meaning.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Are you saying that:
1.) the people living in modern Palestine are not genetically descended from the people living in first-century Palestine,
or
2.) the people living in first-century Palestine were descendants of Ishmael, not Isaac?
No-one has answered this point yet. I suppose that is because its irrelevant to anti-Zionists and embarrassing to Zionists. But the "Arab Christians" of Palestine and Syria now are the spiritual and biological descendents of the Jewish Christians of the first few centuries. Just as much descended from Abraham and Isaac and King David as the Jews who did not become Christians.
(Of course we are all descended from Abraham and Isaac and King David at least a little bit, but Jews - and other Palestinians - are statistically likely to be more descended from them than most people are)
But saying that the state of Israel had or has the right to exclude Palestinians from their homes is exactly the same as saying htat theoy would have the right to exclude Peter and Andrew and James and John. And that would be a fulfilment of Jesus's words to the disciples:
quote:
They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you shall think that he offereth service unto God.
[ 18. May 2012, 16:37: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingale
Shipmate
# 16599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But the "Arab Christians" of Palestine and Syria now are the spiritual and biological descendents of the Jewish Christians of the first few centuries. Just as much descended from Abraham and Isaac and King David as the Jews who did not become Christians.
I'll be honest, I've never heard that Palestinian Christians (or some of them) are ethnic Jewish descendants of the first Christians. Do you have something I can read about that?
I'd figured that they are ethnic Arabs who accepted Christ before the rise of Islam or in lieu of it, and this seems backed up by the fact that they speak Arabic and have Arabic family names (most Jews who remained in the Middle East during the rise of Islam adopted as vernacular a dialect of Arabic analogous to Yiddish, with Hebrew lettering).
Posts: 679 | From: Connectilando | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But the "Arab Christians" of Palestine and Syria now are the spiritual and biological descendents of the Jewish Christians of the first few centuries. Just as much descended from Abraham and Isaac and King David as the Jews who did not become Christians.
I'll be honest, I've never heard that Palestinian Christians (or some of them) are ethnic Jewish descendants of the first Christians. Do you have something I can read about that?
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's pretty much a fact that there is no genetic difference worth speaking about between the semitic peoples of the near east. It is, for the want of a better way of looking at it, simply a difference in hats.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
It isn't exactly a new (nor, it seems an exact) science, but some geneticist claim that Palestinians and Jews share a genetic history. There was some hoo-ha a while back when an academic journal pulled an article with a similar sounding thesis.
There is a good written pedigree for some Palestinian families going back at least until the 7 century but I've never heard of Palestinian Christians being considered to be a distinct population within the Palestinian community. I very much doubt this is true.
Palestinians themselves say they are most closely related to Iraqis, though there must have been significant mixing of the populations in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan in the twentieth century, if not before.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I suspect the origins of the Palestinians are largely myth, but another popular belief (among some Palestinians at least) is that they are related to the ancient Philistines (hence the name - which in Arabic sounds much more similar).
I suspect the truth is that their history goes back to antiquity and is a mixture of Jewish, Saracen, pre-Islamic Bedouin and so on. When the Jews were scattered by the Saracens and then the chaos of the crusades, my guess it is impossible to say for sure who is related to whom.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
