Everything from Al-Quds to Ottomans Week 3

I want to apologize for being away from the blogging world for so long. Some illness attacked my body early last week not to mention the overwhelming stack of responsibilities that demanded my attention. My brain has been trying to take in the overwhelming amount of information that Karen has thrown at us in the past six chapters. Time is moving fast now and a lot has happened. Reflecting on chapters 12-16 makes my head hurt. I can't keep it all straight. Going into this book we were told that at some point we would be lost in the midst of all the conflicts, conquerors, and opinions that surround Jerusalem's past. I have found myself in this place. Part of me is overwhelmed by how crazy it is but I am comforted by the consistency of the craziness. (I'm not sure if that makes sense. I am lost in all the conflict, it's always something new, but at the same time it's all the same.) The conflict in Jerusalem seems to be unending. A different ruler, a different faith, a different society, but the same conflict.
The first line of Chapter 12 was really interesting to me. "The Muslims had established a system that enabled Jews, Christians, and Muslims to live in Jerusalem together for the first time." This made me think. How were they possibly going to pull this off? What inspired them to be so tolerant of these other people? How could they maintain control of Jerusalem with this kind of tolerance? Armstrong went on to say, "It seemed as though Islam and Christianity were about to enter a new era of friendship and peace."(pg.258) This proved to be difficult. Conflict, intolerance, starvation, and destitution rose up again in the city of Jerusalem.
The Crusades seem to reflect the same battle only now from the Christian perspective. The outcome was as you would expect..."The Crusades in the East and the reconquista in Europe had made a new and permanent rift between the three religions of Abraham."(pg. 306) This period of time baffles me. Did these Christian people actually believe that this was what God wanted? Who told them this was a good idea? I have a very hard time believing that the God they served was actually pleased by this act of violence. Maybe this is a question to ask the scholars tomorrow...
Here's a question, was the Ottoman rule a period of relief for everyone? It seems like the city began to prosper and experience much needed peace during this time. Is this true? Was there really that much peace?

sacred space week 3

Looking back at chapters eight and nine I was intrigued by the idea of God dwelling in one distinct place. Armstrong touches on this idea frequently as she discusses the destruction of the Temple and the events that followed. She states,
"The Temple had represented the heart of the world's meaning, the core of the faith. Now life had neither value or significance, and it seems that in these dark days many Jews lost their faith. It is not true, as often been asserted, that the Jews had fully outgrown their Temple. Even those Jews who had begun to evolve other ways of experiencing the divine believed that Jerusalem and its sanctuary were central to their religion. Jews would need all their creativity to survive this devastating loss." (pg. 155)

After the Temple had been destroyed people worshiped and observed Shabbat not in a "sacred space" but rather in "consecrated time". The destruction of the temple seemed to redefine in some sense what it meant to interact with the divine. Armstrong then brought up what I think is a very interesting question...
"What had it meant to say that God dwelt in a man-made building? Had he been present nowhere else?"
Did the destruction of the Temple change the way these people thought about the presence of their God? Are the convictions they felt during that time still felt today?

Origen, the Christian scholar states, "It was only pagans who sought God in a shrine and thought that the gods dwelt "in a particular place." (pg. 171)
From a Christian standpoint God no longer dwells in a Temple but in the man of Jesus Christ. But the Jews did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. They do not believe that he is God. Therefore, from a Jewish standpoint, does the presence of God still dwell in the Temple, in a sacred space, as it did in the Old Testament?
I would be interested to know what the class thought about this. Could you worship a God who only dwells in one "sacred" space? Does it make a difference if that space is man-made or not? Does this idea seem foolish or "pagan"?

Barenboim Interview.

"This is the most important thing I do. No question."--Daniel Barenboiem

This is a three part interview that BBC did with Daniel Barenboim. I encourage you to watch the full interview. He is the conductor for the West-Eastern Divan orchestra. This orchestra has brought together people from Egypt, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria. If you missed the movie this past weekend check out this interview. They talk about Barenboim's motives and goals in bringing this orchestra together.
I thought that it was really interesting that the interviewer stops Barenboim from reflecting on past Israel. He insists that they start the interview talking about the present state of Israel but Barenboim can't neglect the past. This reminds me of our class as we struggle through Armstrong's book. Past events and trends seem to be an important aspect of looking critically at Jerusalem's present, even for Israelis.

one love week 2

We were talking about different translations of the Bible in class on Thursday. Originally written in the Hebrew and Greek our English translations sometimes fall short of capturing the full meaning of a verse. Many words do not translate exactly. For example, in English we have one word for love. We love our car, we love our parents, and we love burritos. Surely we do not love a pair of pants in the same way that we would love a spouse. In the Hebrew there are three different words for love that carry very different meanings.
Raya is a picture of companionship. It is the love that flows out of knowing someone deeply. This type of love is the foundation of a relationship. Raya has to be present to experience the Hebrew word Ahava.
Ahava is the choice to love. Ahava bears a commitment. It is more than just "I love you" it is, "I am choosing you forever no matter what." This love is not conditional and is not dependent on emotion. This is a love of the will. In the Hebrew, it is implied that Raya would lead to Ahava and that these two types of love would lead to Dod.
Dod is described as the mingling of souls. It is two souls coming together. This word does not merely describe sex but is the idea of two people coming together fully. These types of "love" are building blocks of intimacy. It seems that if you don't have Raya then Ahava cannot take place and where these first two are not present, Dod is impossible. The word love that we understand in English does not brush the surface of what is being spoken of in the Hebrew text.

seven things.

This assignment is interesting because it allows me to be who ever I want to be. Not having met any of you before this class I will assume that your perspective of who I am, for at least the next few weeks, will be dependent on this post. So the question remains, how do I want to be defined?
I like lists. My brain organizes everything into lists. So here it is, seven things...
1) I am a Christian. This doesn't mean that I grew up in the Church and have proceeded to take on my parents religious views. Rather, I heard the gospel of Jesus Christ in high school and I heard it differently than I ever had growing up. The message of grace and forgiveness through Jesus changed me; it is continually changing me.
2) I am apart of a non-profit ministry directed at high school students and have loved getting to be apart of the crazy things God is doing.
3) I am getting married this summer. I know that my life as a college student will soon become the life of a married woman and I am both excited and nervous for this next stage. I fear change, I fear what I don't know, but change must happen eventually.
4) I have coached high school girls lacrosse for the past four years and really enjoy it.
5) I bought a kayak last summer on a whim. I'm not sure who buys a boat on a whim, but I did. It was one of the best purchases I have made.
6) When it comes to literature, food, movies and music I will pretty much read, eat, watch, or listen to anything.
7) I think that the new student union is awesome, but I hate that it closes at midnight.

The articles for this week set an interesting backdrop for this second assignment. My faith is very important to all aspect of my life and to read about the tension of Jerusalem as the holy city for three different faiths is interesting. Personal convictions about faith and religion don't change the way I view historical events involving Jerusalem, but it does impact how I think about its future. I spent this past weekend celebrating Easter with my family and friends and I could not help but wonder what was going on in the restless city of Jerusalem. Does there seem to be more tension between people of different faiths during the holiday time? It is interesting to me that one city could be a holy site to three distinctly different faiths. Khalidi concluded his article by talking about instilling a "religious freedom for everyone at the holy sites sacred to the three Abrahamic faiths." Likewise Rubin speaks about a "united city where Jews and Muslims, some secular and others religious, could live side by side". How do you successfully intermingle three different groups of people into the same city when the distinction is not merely cultural but religious? I guess this is what we are going to being studying and discussing this quarter...

As far as an open or closed blog, I don't care. I think it would be interesting to leave it open and see what happens but I don't want it to be an issue for anyone else in the class. Either option is fine with me.