Re: Timeline: U.S.-Israeli Relations Since 1948
- From: Rick <mulemanrick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:14:27 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 18, 6:28 pm, "Finn's Awake" <oonaghmacc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 16, 12:16 pm, Sanity <sanity-cla...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
AL-QUR’AN calls Moses “Rasule” [Prophet of God] and the Torah the Word
of God. The 3,000+ year old conflict between the Israel and Islam,
IMO, boils down to whether or not Abraham’s first born actually sold
his birthright for a bowl of lintel soup... %~\
let's get our stories straight, shall we? the narrative gives us,
without a lot of interpretaive explaining that abraham's first born
son was ishmael, the one the muslim world claims as the eponymous
ancestor of islam. ishmael in the story never himself lays claim to
nor does he sell any birthright for beans or anything else...ishmael
had no hope or expectation of an inheritance from abraham as he was
born out of wedlock to a maidservant of the abrahamic family, and
ousted from their camp, with his unfortunate mother, as a young boy,
to wander in the desert, after abraham's legal wife, sarah, gave birth
at the ripe old age of 90 something, to babyisaac, thanks to some
kinda angelic intervention, as the story goes...
poorish! poorish'smom! & i thought she and sarah must've got along
okay til the second baby came along... i'm jewish myself but this
story has always bothered me a lot... and does indeed offer insight as
to why those considering themselves descendants of abe's rejected
first child have such hard feelings toward the acknowledged
descendants of abraham, sarah & miracle boyisaac...
and it was, according to the lore, *isaac's* first born son,
abraham's *grandson, that is to say esau, the hunter, who came home
famished from an unsuccessful hunt, and, smelling the lovely soup his
slightly younger twin jacob had cooking, traded his birthright for
that savory "mess of pottage" to bean farmer brother jacob. as second
born child ofisaac,
jacob, now considered one of the great early patriarchs of judaism,
would not have otherwise been in line for the birthright unless elder
brother esau died, according to the customs of their day...
and it was lentils, notlintels... a lintel is an architectural
feature, a crossbeam atop two upright posts, as in a doorway-- a
lentil, as most good hippies know & appreciate, is a yummy, quick
cooking little flattish greenish-brownish legume, very easy to grow,
delicious with onions, barley and carrots.....
it seems to me this lore re the hunter and the bean guy may be
understood to symbolically depict a larger ancient conflict between
early hunter gatherer tribes in the levant and the encroachment of
agrarian cultures who would take over the old hunting grounds,
settling & building cities where the hunters used to range, scaring
off or depleting much of the good game, clearing great tracts of land,
running off the hunters, destroying wild habitat for the sake of
enough growing food to support larger and larger settlements... maybe
all modern land & resource conflicts boil down to something like
those early struggles in some sense... but who's to say to whom land
and the rights to its resources belong? can you make a contract, in
desperation or coercion, to buy or sell your right to a homeland, a
family title, a faith? and doesnt the story point to the fact that
these conflicted characters are, after all is said and done, all one
anothers' relations not just abhraham's children, but gods?? but then,
as now, i'm in accord with you saniry, it seems that setting up
institutional inequities around infant legitimacy, inheritance and
such meant a terrible mess o troubles for that ancient family, and now
for all of its descendants...
i'm jewish myself, not a literalist when it comes to interpreting the
bible, just an interested scholar. all the stories in the ancient
writings seem to have at least three ways of being understood. you can
read simply for the ostensible outer meaning of these tales and
certainly find many elements disturbing and baffling and seemingly
just not right somehow. this prompts one to seek an inner, or symbolic
or maybe even mystical interpretation... or an alternative meaning...
all this stuff in the context of human history, family psychology, and
Can Obama stop the slaying of Isaac and Ishmael?
....Both Judaism and Islam assume that the Temple Mount (called 'Mount
Moriah' in the book of Genesis) was the sight of one of the most
problematic scenes in Biblical theology. According to the Biblical
text, God requested of Abraham to take his son, Isaac, and to
sacrifice him on Mount Moriah.
Abraham did as told, and only when he was about to slaughter his son,
God intervened and told Abraham to sacrifice a ram caught in the
In the Muslim tradition, Ishmael was really the son that Abraham
almost sacrificed on the Temple Mount. Paradoxically, Judaism and
Islam compete with each other which of the two sons was subjected to
this traumatic ordeal - obviously seeing great value in this act.
In Christianity, the motif of filial sacrifice is no less strong.
Depending on the specific theology, Jesus is either seen as God
incarnate who sacrifices himself to atone for the sin of humanities,
or as God?s son sacrificed for the same purpose. Once again the scene
of the sacrifice is the Old City of Jerusalem: the Via Dolorosa
follows the road of Jesus' suffering on the way to the ultimate
sacrifice, his death at the cross...
- Prev by Date: Rainbow Scouts Need "Green Energy": PayPal Link and Widget
- Next by Date: Re: Rainbow Scouts Need "Green Energy": PayPal Link and Widget
- Previous by thread: Rainbow Scouts Need "Green Energy": PayPal Link and Widget
- Next by thread: Aus Great Barrier Reef