Proverbs 4:23 "Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life." (NIV)
Philippians 4:7 "and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." (NKJV)
These are the only two verses in the Bible that I know which use the phrase "guard your heart" (at least in some translations), yet this phrase is used all over by Christians offering advice on relationships.
It's rather ironic.
The first verse in its context seems to be quite clear in its warning to guard your heart, against sin, not against possibly painful emotions, which is how it's generally used.
The second verse seems to be speaking of guarding the heart from anxiety and worry. Again, not much to do with romance.
When most Christians today use the phrase "guard your heart" they are warning against becoming too emotionally involved too quickly with a member of the opposite sex. Such warnings may be logical, but I'm beginning to wonder if they're Biblical.
Some might argue that in the culture the Bible was written in there was no idea of dating. Marriages were generally arranged, and a bride might only know her intended husband for a brief time before they were legally married. There was then a time of "betrothal" where, though legally married they were not physically intimate, in which emotional attachment could presumably be cultivated. Thus, there was little risk of developing an emotional attachment to someone who was not to be your husband and girls could effectively "guard their hearts" and avoid painful breakups. Christians then argue from this culture to say that young men and women pursuing a relationship should attempt to avoid emotional attachment until at least engagement, thus making break-ups less painful.
I have at least two problems with this argument.
First of all, simply because something was done a certain way in the culture of ancient Israel, I don't think that is reasonable to conclude that that is the best way to do it. All cultures need to be redeemed by the gospel, and Israelite culture is no exception. There is evidence that some of these same women who were so properly betrothed, once married, also worshiped clay images of women with large breasts, praying for fertility. Should we then advise Christian couple struggling with fertility to make their own clay goddesses to pray to? Arguments from culture, though possibly having valuable insight, are not on par with arguments from Scripture.
Second, I don't recall any place in the Bible where we are told to avoid emotional pain. Human nature wants to avoid pain, and there is no wisdom in looking for it unnecessarily, but some emotional pain is unavoidable.
C. S. Lewis writes in The Four Loves:
Of all arguments against love none makes so strong an appeal to my nature as “Careful! This might lead you to suffering.”
To my nature, my temperament, yes. Not to my conscience. When I respond to that appeal I seem to myself to be a thousand miles away from Christ. If I am sure of anything I am sure that His teaching was never meant to confirm my congenital preference for safe investments and limited liabilities.…
There is no safe investment. To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket—safe, dark, motionless, airless—it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. The alternative to tragedy, or at least to the risk of tragedy, is damnation. The only place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell.
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Monday, March 15, 2010
Abu Ghosh
Today there are roughly 1.3 million Arab Israelis in Israel. They represent approximately 20% of the population. About 82% of them are Muslim and the remaining 18% is divided almost equally between Christians and Druze. They are living in a state which makes attempts to be both Jewish and Democratic, leading to some interesting conundrums.
On Saturday I went on a Field Study to Abu Ghosh, the only Arab village allowed to remain along the Jerusalem Corridor during the war of 1948. There we met with their Head of Education, Issa Jaber who told us some of the history of the town and offered some insight about how it was to live as a Muslim in a Jewish state.
We met him at our first stop of the day: the Church of Notre Dame de l’Arche d’Alliance. The church was built over the remains of a Byzantine church - ceramic tile work is still visible in many places. The current church was built in 1917 and commemorates the house of Abinadab in Kiriath-jearim where the Ark of the Covenant stayed for 20 years, until David brought it to Jerusalem. (See 1 Samuel 7 and 2 Samuel 6). The church even has a picture of David playing "the organ" before the ark.
The church is visible for miles around, along with the statue that sits atop it: Mary, holding Jesus, standing on the Ark, facing towards Jerusalem.
The Christian population in Abu Ghosh is basically non-existent. The church is kept up by a few nuns who live there and run a guest house, but no services are held in the church. It does see use, however, twice a year when the town has its semiannual Classical Music Festival.
Our second stop was also a church and monastery. This church, the Church of the Resurrection, dates back to the crusader period, for the most part. It was built on top of a fort of some sort constructed by the 10th Roman Legion. It commemorates the New Testament site of Emmaus. The tradition connecting this place to Emmaus is quite late, as far as traditions go, and therefore seems rather unlikely to have settled upon the correct location, theologically appealing though it may be. At any rate, the church has some lovely, newly restored, crusader-era frescoes and wonderful acoustics.
After this second church Issa took us to his house where his wife had spent all morning preparing an amazing lunch for us. Throughout our time with him he told us about various issues affecting him and his community. Education is a huge issue for him, as the head of education in Abu Ghosh. Biblical studies are required in the curriculum prescribed by the state, as well as Jewish history and literature. Islamic studies are not required, nor is space alloted for Islamic History and Literature, which is clearly something of an issue for the Islamic community. It would be like America being required to teach Chinese history and literature - instead of American history and literature.
We also learned about various other pars of life - marriage traditions and the importance of coffee. (Note: never serve coffee until nearly the end of the visit, make sure to use sugar, and if you are offered coffee, drink it!)
Over all, it was a refreshing visit. Abu Ghosh has a very unique history in Israel. It's a nice contrast to Jerusalem where religious tensions always run high, especially in this recent news. Issa reflects the general desire there for peace among the three major religions of the country as a chairman of ICCI.
After we left Issa and Abu Ghosh we stopped at Castel (pronounced kast-el...like it looks, but coming from the same word as castle). Castel was a site of great importance in April of 1948 as the Jews fought to gain access to Jerusalem. It also has great grass.
On top we took some time to discuss the events of April 1948, the taking and re-taking of Castel which allowed the road to Jerusalem to be held for 11 days. We then looked around at the view. For a geography geek like me it was a great view.
It was a good day. Quite informative. Lots to think about. And, of course, as on any good field study, there were flowers:
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Have you ever wondered...?
Have you ever read a Bible story and wondered what in the world was going on? The characters behaved in inexplicable ways, sometimes even seemingly ignoring common rules of morality, and yet it seem to be implied in the text that what they did was acceptable or even praise-worthy. So we sit back and scratch our heads and wonder, "What in the world just happened?"
I think that coming to Israel and studying here at JUC has helped me to understand a few of those stories a bit better. Let me give you a couple of examples from my study this semester and then you can let me know your thoughts.
Let's start with Genesis 38, Ben's favorite passage of this summer. :) For those of you who might have skipped over this passage in your yearly reading-through-the-Bible-plan, here's a brief synopsis:
1. Judah (son of Jacob) gets married and has 3 sons.
2. Judah gets a wife for his first born son, Er. Her name is Tamar.
3. Er dies before having any children.
4. Judah then marries his second son, Onan, to Tamar (practicing levirate marriage), to raise up an heir for his brother.
5. Onan refuses to give his brother an heir (possible reasons discussed below) and God kills him.
6. Judah's third son, Shelah, is too young to marry, so he sends Tamar back to her father's house to wait for Shelah to grow up.
7. For some reason, Judah never gets around to marrying Tamar to Shelah.
8. Judah's wife dies.
9. Judah goes to shear sheep and Tamar hears about it. She veils herself (like a prostitute) and sits by the road when Judah will pass.
10. Judah does pass, sees Tamar, thinks she is a prostitute, and sleeps with her. He leaves with her his "signet and cord" and staff, as promise that he will pay for the services provided. However, she never comes to claim payment, and no one knows anything of a prostitute in that area.
(If this isn't making sense, read the story in Genesis for yourself.)
11. Tamar is found to be pregnant. Judah is told and recommends that she be punished by death.
12. Tamar then brings out Judah's signet and cord and staff as evidence of the man who made her pregnant.
13. Judah sees them and says, "She has been more righteous than I, because I did not give her to Shelah my son."
14. She bears twins, the first of which, Perez, apparently becomes Judah's heir.
So, we are left with the thought that a woman who seduced her father-in-law is considered righteous? That seems really bizarre.
First of all, we need to realize that culturally speaking, land and heirs were the most important things. These values are echoed throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. Er, as Judah's first born would have inherited the main portion of all that was Judah's, as then his son would be next in line. Because he didn't have a son, Onan was to provide one for him. The inheritance would have then pass over Onan (as the oldest remaining son) and gone to "Er's" son (who would have been biologically the son of Tamar and Onan). Perhaps Onan wanted to insure that the inheritance came to him and his sons, thus explaining why he refused to give Tamar children. Later on, by not making Shelah provide Tamar with a son, Judah was also disregarding the importance of the line of inheritance. So Tamar took things into her own hands. She insured that the line of Judah would be properly continued. Perhaps this is the reason that Judah says she has been more righteous than he. She valued land, inheritance, and had a high respect for the way inheritance should be passed (as confirmed by God in the law later). Perhaps.
Example 2: Ruth
This one is a bit longer, so I'll assume that you know the gist of the story. I'm going to focus on chapter 3 and the happenings at the threshing floor. If you recall, Boaz is eating and drinking at the threshing floor. He goes to lie down and once he's asleep, Ruth goes and uncovers his "feet" and lays down. He wakes up later and tells her "Blessed are you of the Lord, my daughter. For you have shown more kindness at the end than at the beginning, in that you did not go after young men, whether poor or rich."
Have you ever wondered what was going on here? Why this sneaking about the threshing floor? And why is she blessed by Boaz for doing so? We've been reading through Ruth in Hebrew this semester, and this topic came up as some of us were studying together. Someone made an interesting point, which, if not completely correct, is at least worth consideration.
First, let's look at history a little.
Question: Where was Ruth from?
Answer: Moab! (as you all knew)
Question: Who are the Moabites? How did that people start?
Answer: Why, we are told about this in Genesis 19: 30-38, of course. Another rather disturbing story. Lot's two daughters have no prospects for getting husbands, and without a husband or a son, women in that day were pretty well destitute. Once their father died, they would have been as good as dead themselves. So instead, they make their father drunk, and in nine months, each of his daughters gives birth to a son. The son of the eldest daughter was called Moab and the Moabites are decended from him. So, to put it bluntly, Ruth is the decentant of a woman so desperate for a child that she took advantage of her drunk father.
When Ruth arrived at the threshing floor, Boaz's "heart was cheerful." In other words, he was "drunk as a skunk." And she went and uncovered his reglaim, which our Bibles translate as "feet" but which really can mean everything from the waist down. Ruth and Naomi were desperate. Without a man - a son- they were destitute. It would have been understandable if Ruth had taken advantage of Boaz's inebriated state to get a son, as her ancestor did. But she didn't. She gave him the choice: to act like a kinsman redeemer and provide that son properly, or to refuse and effectively condemn her and Naomi to death. Perhaps this is why Boaz calls her blessed. She had more faith in God than her ancestor, Lot's daughter. Perhaps even more faith than Naomi did when she gave Ruth her instructions. And Boaz rewarded her faith by marrying her, redeeming her land, and providing and heir.
Interesting, at least. I'm not convinced that I fully understand either of these stories yet, but I think understanding the culture in which they took place had helped me have at least a little bit of a better grasp on them. Feel free to let me know where you would agree or disagree or if you have a question.
I think that coming to Israel and studying here at JUC has helped me to understand a few of those stories a bit better. Let me give you a couple of examples from my study this semester and then you can let me know your thoughts.
Let's start with Genesis 38, Ben's favorite passage of this summer. :) For those of you who might have skipped over this passage in your yearly reading-through-the-Bible-plan, here's a brief synopsis:
1. Judah (son of Jacob) gets married and has 3 sons.
2. Judah gets a wife for his first born son, Er. Her name is Tamar.
3. Er dies before having any children.
4. Judah then marries his second son, Onan, to Tamar (practicing levirate marriage), to raise up an heir for his brother.
5. Onan refuses to give his brother an heir (possible reasons discussed below) and God kills him.
6. Judah's third son, Shelah, is too young to marry, so he sends Tamar back to her father's house to wait for Shelah to grow up.
7. For some reason, Judah never gets around to marrying Tamar to Shelah.
8. Judah's wife dies.
9. Judah goes to shear sheep and Tamar hears about it. She veils herself (like a prostitute) and sits by the road when Judah will pass.
10. Judah does pass, sees Tamar, thinks she is a prostitute, and sleeps with her. He leaves with her his "signet and cord" and staff, as promise that he will pay for the services provided. However, she never comes to claim payment, and no one knows anything of a prostitute in that area.
(If this isn't making sense, read the story in Genesis for yourself.)
11. Tamar is found to be pregnant. Judah is told and recommends that she be punished by death.
12. Tamar then brings out Judah's signet and cord and staff as evidence of the man who made her pregnant.
13. Judah sees them and says, "She has been more righteous than I, because I did not give her to Shelah my son."
14. She bears twins, the first of which, Perez, apparently becomes Judah's heir.
So, we are left with the thought that a woman who seduced her father-in-law is considered righteous? That seems really bizarre.
First of all, we need to realize that culturally speaking, land and heirs were the most important things. These values are echoed throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. Er, as Judah's first born would have inherited the main portion of all that was Judah's, as then his son would be next in line. Because he didn't have a son, Onan was to provide one for him. The inheritance would have then pass over Onan (as the oldest remaining son) and gone to "Er's" son (who would have been biologically the son of Tamar and Onan). Perhaps Onan wanted to insure that the inheritance came to him and his sons, thus explaining why he refused to give Tamar children. Later on, by not making Shelah provide Tamar with a son, Judah was also disregarding the importance of the line of inheritance. So Tamar took things into her own hands. She insured that the line of Judah would be properly continued. Perhaps this is the reason that Judah says she has been more righteous than he. She valued land, inheritance, and had a high respect for the way inheritance should be passed (as confirmed by God in the law later). Perhaps.
Example 2: Ruth
This one is a bit longer, so I'll assume that you know the gist of the story. I'm going to focus on chapter 3 and the happenings at the threshing floor. If you recall, Boaz is eating and drinking at the threshing floor. He goes to lie down and once he's asleep, Ruth goes and uncovers his "feet" and lays down. He wakes up later and tells her "Blessed are you of the Lord, my daughter. For you have shown more kindness at the end than at the beginning, in that you did not go after young men, whether poor or rich."
Have you ever wondered what was going on here? Why this sneaking about the threshing floor? And why is she blessed by Boaz for doing so? We've been reading through Ruth in Hebrew this semester, and this topic came up as some of us were studying together. Someone made an interesting point, which, if not completely correct, is at least worth consideration.
First, let's look at history a little.
Question: Where was Ruth from?
Answer: Moab! (as you all knew)
Question: Who are the Moabites? How did that people start?
Answer: Why, we are told about this in Genesis 19: 30-38, of course. Another rather disturbing story. Lot's two daughters have no prospects for getting husbands, and without a husband or a son, women in that day were pretty well destitute. Once their father died, they would have been as good as dead themselves. So instead, they make their father drunk, and in nine months, each of his daughters gives birth to a son. The son of the eldest daughter was called Moab and the Moabites are decended from him. So, to put it bluntly, Ruth is the decentant of a woman so desperate for a child that she took advantage of her drunk father.
When Ruth arrived at the threshing floor, Boaz's "heart was cheerful." In other words, he was "drunk as a skunk." And she went and uncovered his reglaim, which our Bibles translate as "feet" but which really can mean everything from the waist down. Ruth and Naomi were desperate. Without a man - a son- they were destitute. It would have been understandable if Ruth had taken advantage of Boaz's inebriated state to get a son, as her ancestor did. But she didn't. She gave him the choice: to act like a kinsman redeemer and provide that son properly, or to refuse and effectively condemn her and Naomi to death. Perhaps this is why Boaz calls her blessed. She had more faith in God than her ancestor, Lot's daughter. Perhaps even more faith than Naomi did when she gave Ruth her instructions. And Boaz rewarded her faith by marrying her, redeeming her land, and providing and heir.
Interesting, at least. I'm not convinced that I fully understand either of these stories yet, but I think understanding the culture in which they took place had helped me have at least a little bit of a better grasp on them. Feel free to let me know where you would agree or disagree or if you have a question.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Back from Jordan!
And indeed, what a trip it was! We covered a huge area in only 4 days, a feat that was made slightly easier by the fact that they Jordanians apparently have no interest in excavating or keeping up Biblical sites and therefore not enough is known about them to keep us there for long periods of time. Rather a mixed blessing, I guess.
At any rate, here are my thoughts from the first day:
November 13, 2008, Amman, Jordan.
Hooray! My first time in Jordan! I don’t think I really learned or saw anything earth-shattering today, but it has been an interesting day, though not so much in terms of history or geography. Probably the most interesting thing to me has just been to observe the country – the towns, the people, and to see similarities and differences between Jordan, Israel, and home.
The day started out at the border crossing near Jericho. It had poured rain in Jerusalem shortly before we left, and apparently had even rained some in the rift valley. It was fun to see puddles still sitting and wadis flowing with small amounts of muddy water. I think it’s one of my goals to see a flash wadi flood (from a safe distance, of course), but for now I enjoyed actually seeing water in these wadis. Crossing the border went as smoothly as could be expected. I was amused by the mobile x-ray machine for our baggage as we entered Jordan. Security is definitely not as tight as at the airports back home. At any rate, we made it through, both the Israeli side and the Jordanian side.
Our first “real” stop of the day was as Deir Alla (not sure of the spelling?) which is thought to be ancient Succoth. It was supposedly in this area that Solomon molded metals in clay to furnish his house. Strangely enough, there is evidence of smelting here, dating to the 10th century. Not proof, but interesting. It is also the place where an inscription mentioning Balaam son of Beor was found. From there we could see the Alexandrium and the Wadi Faria. I personally was favoribly impressed with the vaious colored rocks they had. I've gotten a little tired of similarly colored limestones.
It turns out that the archaeologist of that region lives or works right across the street from the tell, and he was very impressed a) that we visited and b) that we stayed so long. I wouldn’t necessarily say that archaeological interest is thriving in that area of the country. I’m sure there’s some, but probably very few tourists.
After that we stopped at the window place (Pella). No, they don’t really have windows, that’s just my lame attempt at a joke. They did have some spiffy columns, though, as well as a huge, steep tell. Pella was one of the Decapolis cities, right across the rift valley from Beth Shean. This probably would have been the most important Jordan crossing in ancient times. From transjordan all the way to the coast there is very minimal elevation changes.
The next stop was Gadera (another spot of the commemoration of the demonized pigs). This place is special for a couple reasons. It’s a Decapolis city which, of course, means a cardo, columns, a couple theaters, temples, etc. However, it just so happens that it is built in a small region with basalt rock. So it has Corinthian capitals made of basalt (instead of limestone or marble or granite).
How cool is that? It also has some very hot springs nearby that I believe were used in/as a Roman bath. This site was also special because we finally got to eat here. At 3pm. Actually, we ate on the bus on our way to our next site.
The final stop of the day was Ramoth Gilead. It was indeed remote. This is the place that Ahab with Jehoshephat of Judah tried to take and ended up dying. It’s quite a ways (and climb) from Samaria. It’s a much easier trip (flatter) from Damascus. What he was attempting would have been quite a feat if he had pulled it off. There wasn’t much on the tell. They had apparently found a small fort from about the right time, but all I saw of it was a small corner. There was a Bedouin tent, though, a few bones, a beautiful sunset, and a lovely full moon. The land there is a bit like eastern Montana in its feel. Its partly the openness (fairly dry too) and partly the smell of animals, I think. We even used Montana for an analogy – how does someone who’s grown up in the hills (of Western Montana or Ephriam) feel when they get to the open areas (of eastern Montana or Gilead)?
Turning back from that site we came as close to Iraq as we will on this trip…not very close, really, though we did see a sign for an Iraqi border.
That was about all the geographical and historical information we covered. I had a few other impressions, though. In general the people seemed friendly. Many of the kids we passed would smile and wave…or sometimes throw fruit at us. It’s a colorful place – I’m not quite sure what the point of the multi-colored trucks is, but they’re fun.
Our bus driver apparently got lost while finding our hotel in Amman, Jordan. The hotel is pretty nice, though we’re not to drink the water. It’s lovely to use elevators – I’m so tired. It’s odd – the elevators are pretty nice, but the stairs are pretty sketchy. Some of use went out wandering after dinner. I thought we were just going to wander a bit, and I suppose we did, but somehow we still ended up at Starbucks (where everyone else had gone, but by taxi.) I think that may be the first “real” Starbucks (not counting B&N) that I’ve been in. And I didn’t even buy anything. Driving through Amman (a city of about 2.6 million) it was odd to see so many American places – McDonald's (who apparently delivers here),
Burger King, Subway, Pizza Hut, even Hardee's. Our outing ended up being about 2 hours. I was exhausted when we started. But I enjoyed seeing a bit of Jordan. Crossing streets was interesting. I’m not sure how it happened, but a boy fell right in front of a car while we were walking. That was a little scary. I felt sorry for him. Walking home, a man in a car kept talking to us. “Welcome to Jordan! I love Americans! Me, I am Turkish!” It was kind of funny.
I’m sure I could write more, but I need sleep! Bon Nuit.
At any rate, here are my thoughts from the first day:
November 13, 2008, Amman, Jordan.
Hooray! My first time in Jordan! I don’t think I really learned or saw anything earth-shattering today, but it has been an interesting day, though not so much in terms of history or geography. Probably the most interesting thing to me has just been to observe the country – the towns, the people, and to see similarities and differences between Jordan, Israel, and home.
The day started out at the border crossing near Jericho. It had poured rain in Jerusalem shortly before we left, and apparently had even rained some in the rift valley. It was fun to see puddles still sitting and wadis flowing with small amounts of muddy water. I think it’s one of my goals to see a flash wadi flood (from a safe distance, of course), but for now I enjoyed actually seeing water in these wadis. Crossing the border went as smoothly as could be expected. I was amused by the mobile x-ray machine for our baggage as we entered Jordan. Security is definitely not as tight as at the airports back home. At any rate, we made it through, both the Israeli side and the Jordanian side.
Our first “real” stop of the day was as Deir Alla (not sure of the spelling?) which is thought to be ancient Succoth. It was supposedly in this area that Solomon molded metals in clay to furnish his house. Strangely enough, there is evidence of smelting here, dating to the 10th century. Not proof, but interesting. It is also the place where an inscription mentioning Balaam son of Beor was found. From there we could see the Alexandrium and the Wadi Faria. I personally was favoribly impressed with the vaious colored rocks they had. I've gotten a little tired of similarly colored limestones.
It turns out that the archaeologist of that region lives or works right across the street from the tell, and he was very impressed a) that we visited and b) that we stayed so long. I wouldn’t necessarily say that archaeological interest is thriving in that area of the country. I’m sure there’s some, but probably very few tourists.
After that we stopped at the window place (Pella). No, they don’t really have windows, that’s just my lame attempt at a joke. They did have some spiffy columns, though, as well as a huge, steep tell. Pella was one of the Decapolis cities, right across the rift valley from Beth Shean. This probably would have been the most important Jordan crossing in ancient times. From transjordan all the way to the coast there is very minimal elevation changes.
The next stop was Gadera (another spot of the commemoration of the demonized pigs). This place is special for a couple reasons. It’s a Decapolis city which, of course, means a cardo, columns, a couple theaters, temples, etc. However, it just so happens that it is built in a small region with basalt rock. So it has Corinthian capitals made of basalt (instead of limestone or marble or granite).
How cool is that? It also has some very hot springs nearby that I believe were used in/as a Roman bath. This site was also special because we finally got to eat here. At 3pm. Actually, we ate on the bus on our way to our next site.
The final stop of the day was Ramoth Gilead. It was indeed remote. This is the place that Ahab with Jehoshephat of Judah tried to take and ended up dying. It’s quite a ways (and climb) from Samaria. It’s a much easier trip (flatter) from Damascus. What he was attempting would have been quite a feat if he had pulled it off. There wasn’t much on the tell. They had apparently found a small fort from about the right time, but all I saw of it was a small corner. There was a Bedouin tent, though, a few bones, a beautiful sunset, and a lovely full moon. The land there is a bit like eastern Montana in its feel. Its partly the openness (fairly dry too) and partly the smell of animals, I think. We even used Montana for an analogy – how does someone who’s grown up in the hills (of Western Montana or Ephriam) feel when they get to the open areas (of eastern Montana or Gilead)?
Turning back from that site we came as close to Iraq as we will on this trip…not very close, really, though we did see a sign for an Iraqi border.
That was about all the geographical and historical information we covered. I had a few other impressions, though. In general the people seemed friendly. Many of the kids we passed would smile and wave…or sometimes throw fruit at us. It’s a colorful place – I’m not quite sure what the point of the multi-colored trucks is, but they’re fun.
Our bus driver apparently got lost while finding our hotel in Amman, Jordan. The hotel is pretty nice, though we’re not to drink the water. It’s lovely to use elevators – I’m so tired. It’s odd – the elevators are pretty nice, but the stairs are pretty sketchy. Some of use went out wandering after dinner. I thought we were just going to wander a bit, and I suppose we did, but somehow we still ended up at Starbucks (where everyone else had gone, but by taxi.) I think that may be the first “real” Starbucks (not counting B&N) that I’ve been in. And I didn’t even buy anything. Driving through Amman (a city of about 2.6 million) it was odd to see so many American places – McDonald's (who apparently delivers here),
Burger King, Subway, Pizza Hut, even Hardee's. Our outing ended up being about 2 hours. I was exhausted when we started. But I enjoyed seeing a bit of Jordan. Crossing streets was interesting. I’m not sure how it happened, but a boy fell right in front of a car while we were walking. That was a little scary. I felt sorry for him. Walking home, a man in a car kept talking to us. “Welcome to Jordan! I love Americans! Me, I am Turkish!” It was kind of funny.I’m sure I could write more, but I need sleep! Bon Nuit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)