Israel threatens to cut off water supply to Church of the Holy Sepulchre

  • Thread starter Thread starter TempleofTheSoul
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Teelynn said:
I agree with you, it’s not at all unreasonable to ask the Church to pay for the water they use. The unreasonable part is asking them to anney up for the water they’ve used in the past 40 yrs!!! That is a ridiculously unreasonable demand. I don’t care HOW strapped for cash they are. Water useage was not part of the agreement to begin with, and now they want to charge them for 40 yrs!!! Not koshier at all.
Click to expand...
I agree with you completely, it is definitely not right or just to make them pay for something they have used in the past – especially over 40 years. The main thrust of my comment was directed towards unafraid’s comment, which is towards the end on page 1.

ChadS
 
unafraid said:
Jerusalem, ultimately, is a Christian city. Jesus declared it thus.
Click to expand...
Jerusalem doesn’t “belong” to any one religious denomination. The Jews and the Muslims also have valid claims to the city.
 
If they cut off the water supply to the churches there, then they should also cut off the water supply to all of their synagogues.
 
In light of information such as this: “Evangelical Christians donate USD 37 million in 2006, most to Israel but some to Jews in the former Soviet Union”, ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3367150,00.html.

It seems to me the place to start raising money for the water bill is by redirecting what has so far been very generous charity by Christians.
 
The Church can return to the natural water supply which is located under it… Inside the church of St. Helen, on the side of the Holy Sepulcher, is a large underground water cistern that is accessed by a staircase. According to the Coptic church the water cistern was discovered in the 4th C by Constantine’s mother St. Helen, and used to provide water to the Church of Holy Sepulcher.

👍 Checkour web page on Via Dolorosa station #9 where the cistern is located.
 
i’m thinking crusades are in order.
line 'em up, head 'em out.
let us retrieve our sacred spot

:=)
 
unafraid said:
Firstly, the thought that Jerusalem is somehow cash-strapped is absurd. There is more wealth horded in Jerusalaem than that which is stashed in any other city on planet earth…that is simply a fact. Secondly, Jerusalem is a place sanctified by Christ’s blood, therefore any dictates directed at the legitimate Christian representation there should be viewed as invalid by the faithful.

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is sacred ground. The place is the center of the universe because Jesus made it so. Jerusalem is the city which Jesus Christ sanctified with His blood. That is the sole distinction the place posseses…period. Anything which opposes that view must be deemed sacrilege.

Jerusalem, ultimately, is a Christian city. Jesus declared it thus.
Click to expand...
I agree the notion that the Israelis are short of cash is absurd. A water bill will be less than chump change to them. I think this is just another provocation on the road to eliminating Christianity from the Holy Land. I wouldn’t trust the Israelis to tell the truth about anything.
 
Ferde_Rombola said:
I agree the notion that the Israelis are short of cash is absurd. A water bill will be less than chump change to them. I think this is just another provocation on the road to eliminating Christianity from the Holy Land. I wouldn’t trust the Israelis to tell the truth about anything.
Click to expand...
If they have all this cash to throw around then why is Jerusalem the poorest of Israel’s 50 largest cities?

ChadS
 
ChadS said:
If they have all this cash to throw around then why is Jerusalem the poorest of Israel’s 50 largest cities?
Click to expand...
Because the residents of Jerusalem are poor. They earn only 1/3 as much as as the average Israeli earns.
web.mit.edu/cis/jerusalem2050/Jerusalem-NewYork-lf.ppt

The wealth of a country has nothing to do with the financial condition of a city government in that country. For example, the US as a whole is quite healthy. Yet we have city governments which are sometimes forced to file for bankruptcy.

The city government of Jerusalem is apparently strapped for cash. I wasn’t aware of that before reading this thread, but it doesn’t seem to be a unique situation, either.

As I mentioned earlier, a city government charging a shrine for the water it uses is entirely reasonable. My guess is that this is routine in most countries, including the US.
 
ChadS said:
If I may paraphrase your argument here it is “We’re Christians. We shouldn’t have to pay for something as silly as utilities.”

Your post almost single-handedly makes me want to change my opinion on this whole matter and side with those that think they should pay for the water. You can cut the hyperbole, it’s not a sacrilege to make a church pay for its utilities.
Click to expand...
There is a theory called ‘precedent,’ Chad. It means a practice in place for a significant amount of time has established itself and cannot easily be changed. The theory has great weight in a court of law. There is precedent for the water situation at the Holy site. This move by the Israelis has a lot more to it than a water bill. IMO.
 
ChadS said:
If they have all this cash to throw around then why is Jerusalem the poorest of Israel’s 50 largest cities?
Click to expand...
Probably because a lot of Arabs live there. Most of them are out of work because of the policies of you-know-who.
 
Dale_M said:
Because the residents of Jerusalem are poor. They earn only 1/3 as much as as the average Israeli earns.
web.mit.edu/cis/jerusalem2050/Jerusalem-NewYork-lf.ppt

The wealth of a country has nothing to do with the financial condition of a city government in that country. For example, the US as a whole is quite healthy. Yet we have city governments which are sometimes forced to file for bankruptcy.

The city government of Jerusalem is apparently strapped for cash. I wasn’t aware of that before reading this thread, but it doesn’t seem to be a unique situation, either.

As I mentioned earlier, a city government charging a shrine for the water it uses is entirely reasonable. My guess is that this is routine in most countries, including the US.
Click to expand...
I didn’t realize that the residents of Jerusalem earned so little, but as the article I’d linked to earlier in the thread it said their main staple is tourism and the private sector is almost non-existent and Jerusalem has missed out on all the high tech businesses. Ferde then conflated these statements to read that Israel was cash strapped not just Jerusalem, which is obviously false.

Yes, the churches should pay for the water they use.

ChadS
 
Ferde_Rombola said:
There is a theory called ‘precedent,’ Chad. It means a practice in place for a significant amount of time has established itself and cannot easily be changed. The theory has great weight in a court of law. There is precedent for the water situation at the Holy site. This move by the Israelis has a lot more to it than a water bill. IMO.
Click to expand...
I actually do realize what precedent is, but if precedent isn’t enshrined legally it might be easier than anybody cares to admit to make the church pay for the water bills. Sometimes, in current situations precedent becomes untenable and has to be revised.

ChadS
 
ChadS said:
I actually do realize what precedent is, but if precedent isn’t enshrined legally it might be easier than anybody cares to admit to make the church pay for the water bills.
Click to expand...
It is longevity that enshrines precedent. Isn’t 40 years enough?
ChadS said:
Sometimes, in current situations precedent becomes untenable and has to be revised.
Click to expand...
But it’s not a unilateral decision. And who decides it’s untenable and on what grounds? This will end up in court.
 
To expect payment of present and future water bills seems fair enough. But retroactive billing is just mean, and uncharitable.
sojo said:
Perhaps you meant “ignorant” or “stupid” or “uneducated” or “dumb”?
Click to expand...
sojo, I understand your sensitivity over the (mis)use of the term ‘retarded’.

But to suggest ‘uneducated’ as an alternative doesn’t seem to solve the problem. Many people who are deemed ‘uneducated’ were deprived of educational opportunities through no fault of their own (e.g. poverty, or a bad education system).
 
Use of the word retarded…
People use the verbage they use daily. Perhaps this person doesn’t live with someone that is ____ you fill in the blank. I think you could assume that everyone is using words without picking on someone and accept the conversation as it is. A discussion to lead/bring/follow another to the Church/Jesus/you. Vivat Jesus!
 
Dale_M said:
This.

I know that people who want to use the word “retarded” to indicate derision will now whine about “political correctness.” But even Sarah Palin (no friend of political correctness) has come out against using the word in that manner.

I realize that this is off topic, but the person who made the comment had nothing else to say, so it is hard to respond in any other way.
Click to expand...
I thought the appropriate and correct term for people like your child was Down Syndrome.

Sorry, but the younger generation uses this term to mean backward, not as an insult to
Down Syndrome citizens. I understand that you may think of your child as retarded but that term now means foolish thinking, having nothing to do with you or your son.
 
ChadS said:
I actually do realize what precedent is, but if precedent isn’t enshrined legally it might be easier than anybody cares to admit to make the church pay for the water bills. Sometimes, in current situations precedent becomes untenable and has to be revised.

ChadS
Click to expand...
They probably can start to charge the Church for water, however, it’s unlikely that they’ll have any luck going back forty years. However, it would make for an interesting court case and one that would be enjoyable to watch from the sidelines.
In that area of the world water is the most precious and hard to obtain resource, I can see
no more free water, but none of this going back and calling a for payment of what was considered initially as a gift.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top