A Conversation for Potential Claimants to the 'Holy Land'
shagbark Started conversation Dec 19, 2002
You seem to have overlooked the God who created the land in the first place.
I am reminded of a physics problem that went
"neglecting friction how much energy is needed to keep a car running at 60mph." answer none. Of course you can't neglect friction.
Neither should you neglect God. Just because many don't agree as to whether God exists does not negate his claim. If he created it then it belonged to him and he was within his rights to give it to a man named Abraham. This would give the heirs of Abraham a better claim than anyone else. Of course both Jews and Palestineans can claim
descent from Abraham.
Administrator-General (5+0+9)*3+0 Posted Dec 20, 2002
That adds a whole 'nother dimension to the article. How many gods can claim the Holy Land? Almost every faction had its own divine supporter.
By "God" you seem to mean Yahweh, and you seem to accept the Israelite faction's claim to his support at face value. But that faction only enforced its claim by driving the supporters of the god Ba'al out at swordpoint. Other factions later claimed Yahweh's mandate to rule there too, with the theology changed to support their claims.
In each case, the claim was enforced by human violence, not by direct divine will. That's the main reason I neglected to account for god wars in the article. It might be worth another article, though...
Ssubnel...took his ball and went home Posted Jan 9, 2003
The claim by the followers of Yahweh is wrong as there is evidence in Sumerian history that the biblical Abraham is actually a political/military official from the city of Ur, modern Iraq, who was sent as an envoy to Egypt. The claim to the area by his descendants was as legitimate as any other nomads passing through, on their way to assimilation into Egypt. Everyone is well versed on the terms of his descendants eventual departure and 40 year trek to find a place to settle.
Administrator-General (5+0+9)*3+0 Posted Jan 16, 2003
I can't say the claim by Yahweh's followers is *wrong*; it's just not the *first* claim. But if you trace it back to Abraham, it comes pretty close. The article only traces the Hebrew claim back to Joshua, though; it lumps Abraham in with everyone else who came in from Mesopotamia, under "Canaanites". The Judeo-Christian scriptures make no secret that Abraham was an immigrant from Sumeria.
Ssubnel...took his ball and went home Posted Jan 17, 2003
A-G, I agree. But who are the original claimants then?
Administrator-General (5+0+9)*3+0 Posted Jan 17, 2003
I say, the Canaanites are the original claimants. The theory has been put foward, however, that gods deserve a claim too. Boy, I'd hate to be the World Court when they consider *those* claims...
Ssubnel...took his ball and went home Posted Jan 19, 2003
Bread Sandwich Posted Nov 4, 2006
You cannot negate the claims of God simply by negating his existence? Man, that sucks. I owe God ten pounds and I was hoping to get away with it through Atheism.
I imagine having a claim to the Holy Land is a lot like having a claim to being the successor state to the Roman Empire, anyone can do it if they stretch logic a little.
Administrator-General (5+0+9)*3+0 Posted Aug 11, 2007
Heh. Since I wrote this article, *I* have laid public claim to being the successor state to the Roman Empire. (My research for the article seems to have subconsciously inspired me.) If you do an online search on "Declaration of Domination", you will quickly find out much more.
So I get your point about claims. But don't ask me about my Mideast peace plan, because I'm not claiming the Holy Land.
Still, if you owe ten quid to the landlord, you shall have to beg his mercy whether you believe the landlord exists or not. Likewise does my Empire proclaim, you are obligated to the One Maker. Prepare to submit (your ten-pound debt)!
adarkally Posted Dec 13, 2007
I like this entry, Dominator (not that my personal opinion is of significance!) Both your first move and your closing line are elegant.
To start by calling it "The Holy Land" in order to avoid national alliance is superbly fair, and the characterization of the present state of relations brings a neat bit of historical perspective to bear upon the persistent violence:
"Ironically, given the enmity between the modern entities of Israel and Palestine, their current relationship is the closest the Holy Land has come to a peaceful transfer of power since at least the Crusades."
Key: Complain about this post
- 1: shagbark (Dec 19, 2002)
- 2: Administrator-General (5+0+9)*3+0 (Dec 20, 2002)
- 3: Ssubnel...took his ball and went home (Jan 9, 2003)
- 4: Administrator-General (5+0+9)*3+0 (Jan 16, 2003)
- 5: Ssubnel...took his ball and went home (Jan 17, 2003)
- 6: Administrator-General (5+0+9)*3+0 (Jan 17, 2003)
- 7: Ssubnel...took his ball and went home (Jan 19, 2003)
- 8: Bread Sandwich (Nov 4, 2006)
- 9: Administrator-General (5+0+9)*3+0 (Aug 11, 2007)
- 10: adarkally (Dec 13, 2007)