I have heard these stories before through the Old testament, but I've always read bits and pieces of it over time and never really put events together. I appreciate that Armstrong treats it as "history" but at the same time, states her speculations. Since I am a Christian, I hold everything in the Old Testament to be true, but I have never really considered it on historical terms. So this reading has giving me huge exposure to a different perspective.
Karen Armstrong raises some very good questions in the beginnings of her book. The city of Jerusalem I claimed by the three monotheistic faiths. When looking back at history, the question of who has claims to the city first might seem like a good solution to who gets what. However after reading the chapters, I realized that it so much more complicated because the holiness of the land is of huge importance. Jerusalem is a place where all the faiths have experienced God.
Also this reading gave me a better understanding of why holy land is viewed as important. I didn’t understand it because even though I believe in Jesus’ crucifixion, I place no attachments in the land, but on the act itself. I like how Armstrong puts into detail the importance of the sacred from its very beginnings and its evolution through time. Armstrong speaks generally that people are constantly seeking meaning in their lives. They seek a world that is just and that their futile ways will end in a positive outcome. The way that people come to terms with their meaningless existence is with the encounter of the divine. The encounters with the divine are marked by the symbols and where these encounters were taken place. It was interesting to see Jerusalem’s change before and after King David. I was interesting to read about how Yahweh was an unknown god and was integrated into the city to become the ruling God of Jerusalem. The building of the temple signified a place for the Israelites.
As a Christian, one of the major themes that I see in new believers is that they all ache for a better world and yearn to return to that state that God had originally created. It really surprised me that people in ancient times (through Armstrong’s interpretation) were feeling this way and it was solved by placing their realities in a sacred being, whoever it may be. When I think of ancient and pagan gods, I see them as destructive forces that demand worship or it’ll be the end of them. But it seems that Baal was seen as god that restored order and confronted chaos. So when Armstrong began to talk about the integration of different Canaanite gods, I became rather confused.
"Then, as now, there would always be people devoted who preferred the option of devoting their religious energies to sacred space over the more difficult duty of compassion." I really appreciated this quote because in my own religion, many of us believers tend to focus on the wrong things and this quote reminded me of that. We are called to love others, but choose to nit pick on unimportant details that make us become the opposite of what we claim to be. I cannot speak for Muslims or Jews, but for myself it’s rather important to think of the real worth in situation. Is it better to be right and oppress others along the way or simply love regardless? I know this is too idealistic and impossible to implement as a solution, but it sounds nice.