The End

I want to start this post by saying that it will possibly be my last. By finishing this gopel, we are done with the Bible, and because we are not going to have to read at home any longer, we won't do reading blogs either. It has been great talking about the Bible and all the other books we have read with this nonexistent audience.

So, the last chapters of the gospel of John. I have to say they were a lot more entertaining than the rest of the gospel. I really like the parts when they are pursuing and challenging Jesus, because it is more interesting that the rest of the boring stories, no offence.

The first thing I have to notice is that I think the disciples are portrayed as stupid. They never understand anything that Jesus says, but they will still follow anything he says word by word without caring to think through it. "Then said some of his disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me: and, Because I go to the Father? 18 They said therefore, What is this that he saith, A little while? we cannot tell what he saith (John 16:17)." How come they didn't understand something as easy as "I am going to Heaven, but I will come back." Especially being disciples? I think it was done on purpose to make Jesus seem more intelligent.

I really liked a small part when Jesus was praying to God, and he prayed for his apostles, saying that they gave him great joy. I thought it was very humble and nice to him to say that, after all the time they had spent together.

I also noticed that at the end where a lot of parts that seemed to have the same story as in Luke, because everything about Pilate and how he didn't find Jesus guilty of anything happened in both gospels. The way how it was decided that he was going to be crucified, and important part like those were also the same. Anyway, there were also some major differences, like Jesus' last words.

In Luke's gospel, I don't remember his last words, so I am thinking they might not have been as important or as direct as in John's. Instead, in John's gospel his words are not easily forgotten. He says "I thirst" and "It is finished (John 19:28,30)." That is something that generally keeps you thinking, and you don't really forget that Jesus said he was thirsty as part of his last words. At least to me, it was very interesting, because I didn't expect that to happen. I had also never heard of it, but I think he just said it to fulfill that prophecy he is always talking about. The so-called "scriptures."

For me it is weird that they are always talking about the scriptures, because it seems as though the writer was just reading the scriptures and inventing the story based on what was supposed to happen. " For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. 37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced (John 19:36)." Don't you think it seems as if they had said "Oh, because Jesus can't have his bones broken, then let's say he died before they could break them, to fulfill the scriptures." I don't know, but I find it very weird and discouraging.

A crucial difference between both gospels was that in the gospel of Luke, Jesus only appeared one time to his disciples, and the way he was first seen was a lot different. In this case, Jesus appears at least three times. "This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead. (John 21:14)" I find this strange, because even though I expected differences, something as big as how many times he came back after his resurrection is something big enough that everyone should agree on.

I didn't like the end of this gospel. "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen (John 21:25)." But since there is nothing I can do about it, then I will just have to leave it as the last words in my reading blog! TTYN!

Not That Different After All

Starting off the chapters from eight through fourteen, Jesus already does something I would never expect him to do. I knew he forgave sins, but I would have never thought that he would forgive someone breaking one of the Ten Commandments. When a woman commits adultery, which is one of the most important don't-do, he lets her go, justifying himself by saying everyone there had also sinned. Still, I think according to the Christian church, committing adultery should be a lot worse than normal sinning, but it seems like I was wrong.

I continue and continue to find examples about Jesus being a lot meaner and blunter than the Jesus portrayed in the gospel of Luke. Look at this one, in which he is basically saying that he is a lot more important than the rest of the humans, and that they should only follow him. I know it is probably true, but the way in which he said it made it sound like he was a very arrogant person: "Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he,ye shall die in your sins (John 8:23)."

Then, after seeing all these differences, I saw something I had heard about before. I haven't read it yet, because it appears in the gospel of Mark, but I had heard my friends talk about it. Jesus uses the same method of healing than he did in Mark, he "spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay (John 9:6)." I find this interesting, because it makes me believe in it a little more than before.

Another thing that was similar, this time to the gospel of Luke, was that he used a parable to explain his point of view. In Luke's gospel this is basically all he does, and now it is the first time he tells a story. Anyway, it doesn't work that well, because his apostles don't understand the parable's meaning.

Then, after I thought it wasn't going to be that different after all, I found another difference. In the gospel of Luke, when someone died, Jesus would just be strong and revive them, but in this gospel, "Jesus wept (John 11:35)." I didn't expect him to cry, because he is supposed to be strong and give strength to his followers. Also, he always knew that he was going to revive him, so there was no need to mourn his death.

Something else was that when he was pursued by the Jews, in the gospel of Luke he just continued and accepted his fate, but in this one "Jesus... walked no more openly among the Jews; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples (John 11:54)." I don't think this is very Jesus-like, because I thought he was braver than to just hide away when they were looking for him. If he could revive the dead, how come he couldn't face a bunch of humans?

There was this line that Jesus said to his disciples, that I want to share with you. It is very similar to another line I liked that he said. "I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness (John 12:46)." This means that Jesus is a light that came to the earth meant to take away the darkness to everyone who couldn't see, or make happy everyone who was sad. This definition of Jesus is one that I really like, and I hope everyone else sees its beauty too.

Another thing that I didn't expect, but I think is a development in Jesus' personality, is when he washed his disciples' feet. I thought that was an act of humbleness and a good way of teaching lessons to his apostles. I think it is majorly important because it was during the last supper. I really liked it, and I loved the teaching that came with it.

My last analysis in this post is something that I had never heard, but I think is very important. I have to say I don't really understand it, because I don't know to whom Jesus is referring to: " But the Comforter, which isthe Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you (John 14:26)." Who is the "comforter" or the "Holy Ghost?" I don't know if Jesus is referring to himself after the resurrection, or if it is someone else. I will leave you now with that question, and if you know the answer, please comment!

A Lot More Different Than What I Thought

Hello! New week, new gospel! I chose the gospel of John for this week. As I said before, because you already know the story of Jesus as told in the gospel of Luke, I will analyze the other gospels by comparing them. As the title states, the gospel of John is a lot more different from the gospel of Luke than what I thought it would. I thought that because it was the same story, written at approximately the same time, by people who saw the same things with their own eyes, it would be fairly similar. Well, it wasn't.

I first want to say that, without meaning to offend anyone, the gospel of John until now is boring. I have only read the first seven chapters, but they are enough to make me notice the difference. One of the things that was very different was the way of writing. I am not sure why, but this gospel has a very different tone and even word choice. It sounds more religious, sometimes a lot more descriptive, and for some reason it seems to care more about Jesus' words than his actions. Here they describe exactly what he says, while in Luke they described more of his actions.

Something weird that I noticed was that it said that either Jesus had created the earth, or God came to the earth and no one recognized him. Something else was that, from my point of view, Jesus was a lot blunter and mean in this version. "Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? (John 2:10)" The other version of Jesus was very nice, curing everyone and forgiving sins, while this one doesn't believe in his followers and is always blaming them for everything.

Another difference that I found, or at least something I noticed for the first time, is that Jesus doesn't baptize. I am not sure, but I think he WAS the person who baptized in the Luke version, but here it says that it is his disciples the ones who do his work. "Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples... (John 4:2)" I'm not sure, but I read that attitude as being selfish, and sort of saying "I am too good to baptize normal people; I only do stuff to more important ones." Anyway, I might be wrong, and it might be simply that Jesus put that work to his disciples, just to give them something to do.

He also says things like, "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews (John 4:22)," which make him sound a lot more selfish. I think he sounds as if he didn't know what he was talking about, and he has an attitude of being better than others that is not prone for Messiahs.

Also, there is a moment in which the disciples make it clear that it is very surprising that Jesus talked to women, because it seems like it was not very common for men to speak to women out on the streets. I think that is very classist of their part, because even if that was what people did those times, they should set a good example. I got this from the quote that says "And upon this came his disciples, and marvelled that he talked with the woman (John 4:27)."

One of the few moments when I really saw that the stories had something in common was when it said that someone had asked Jesus to help cure his son, and Jesus had said that when the man went back his son would be cured. The man finally got back some days later and saw that his son was well, and when he asked when he had gotten well, his servants replied that it had been the day the man had seen Jesus. He then got the whole household to believe in God and in Jesus. I think this story would really fit in into the gospel of Luke. That is why, I think, I liked it more than the rest of the story.

Another story that was exactly the same was the one that with very little bread, Jesus was able to give as much as they wanted to eat to 5,000 people, and when they finished the servants picked up 12 baskets of leftovers. This story is basically exactly the same in both versions.

Somethiyng that doesn't happen in Luke but that I hadn't heard before was that Jesus can walk on water. I had heard that a lot, nut hadn't read it until now. It is a very nice description.

Last but not least, I want to say that it is ver strange how about half of the people like Jesus and would support him everywhere possible, and as in both gospels it is said, there are many who spend their lives planning how they will kill him. After all, they achieve their task.

You Know the Process: Crucifixion, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension

Chapter 20-24
As you can see, we finally got to the last 5 chapters of the Gospel of Luke! Finally what I was waiting for! I have to tell you that the whole time I was reading it I couldn't wait to see how it would end and the description of Jesus' death and resurrection. I think this will be the place where there will be more contrast between the four gospels, so I really wanted to see how it folded out in Luke's Gospel. I have also only heard this part of his life through what my friends have told me, so I want to see how it is according to the Bible. Sadly, he dies at the end, so I will talk about other things first.

The whole lot of chapters in this part are very pessimistic. It mostly talked about how the priests wanted to arrest and to kill Jesus, because he was always talking against them. They had lots of witty fights and the priests wanted to tempt him into saying things he didn't mean so that the king would arrest him. Also, Jesus all the time was saying how the world was going to end so they had to do something about it and be prepared.

25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; 26 Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. 27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. (Luke 21:25-28)

I really liked this description, so I put it all. Still, I don't think this has all happened yet. As I said before, it is a little pessimistic. There was a very big description (it continued after that), and everything sounded reasonable, but there was one part I didn't expect. "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away (Luke 21:33)." What is that supposed to mean? Heaven will "pass away?" I always took for granted that Heaven was going to be there forever, and that everyone, according to Christianity, was going either there or to Hell. But what happens if it disappears? What will happen to the people who were still on Earth? Maybe I understood wrong, because I don't think it is possible for Heaven to just "pass away."

I was reading about a supper very normal, when I realized something. They were talking about the last supper. As in, "The Last Supper." If you don't know what I am talking about, just look at the image above. It was very inspiring to know I was finally reading the piece that inspired this work of art. "And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer (Luke 22:15)." Afterwards, he gets bread and gives it around to his apostles. When he is doing that, he says that they should remember when they eat bread because it was his body. I am not sure, but I think that is what they say in modern-day preaches when they give the host.

In chapter 23, the priests finally achieve their goal of arresting Jesus, and take him to King Pilate. They say that Jesus has acted wrong, and he should be crucified. Pilate analyzes him and decides he doesn't find anything wrong in him, so he sends him to Herod. He doesn't find anything wrong either, and sends him back. The priests continue to argue, and finally, "Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required (Luke 23:24)." I don't think it is fair at all that Pilate agreed just because they argued nonstop.

Finally, we got to the moment. "And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him (Luke 23:33)." Don't you think it is weird that he was crucified in line 33 of chapter 23, and 2*3=6 and 3+3=6, six being the devils number? I find it really creepy! Although I haven't yet found proof in the Bible that six is the devil's number, I have heard all my Christian friends say it.

The next part I found really cool was the resurrection. "And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus (Luke 24:3)." I remember I once watched a show in Discovery Channel where they said they thought they had found Jesus' tomb, and his body inside. That would be very strange, because according to the Bible, his body wasn't left in this world. I wonder if by now the study was proved right or wrong. If I find out, I promise to tell you.

I thought it was very cool how Jesus appeared again in front of them and didn't let them recognize him, and as soon as they did, he vanished. I had never heard that part of the story.

It was pretty nice how the story ended, with the resurrection and the happily-ever-after. I will leave it hear, like the other endings I have read, for you to enjoy! "And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen (Luke 24:51-53)."

Love Him or Hate Him

Ch. 14-19
As the past chapters, and probably the next too, these chapters were characterized by their stories. Every chapter was about Jesus going somewhere and then going somewhere else, always healing people and telling stories to them in the way. There were many parabolas to teach people about their exact situation in other words. Sadly, even though I understood most of the stories, I didn't really understand their points or their meanings. Or if I did, I didn't agree with them. Anyways, they were fun to read, and I am not complaining too much about them. The rest of the chapters I will analyze by quotes.

The first one I want to talk about is one that I found very true, and I liked very much. "But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind:And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just (Luke 14:14)." I think it is true, but also very difficult to achieve, because most people, even if they don't realize it, do things to get things back from other people, as soon as possible. Knowing that doing something for people who can't pay you back will compensate itself indirectly when you get to God. That is very important to understand.

There are, like I said in my previous post, some parts I completely disagreed on. Sometimes I can't believe how Jesus can be so blunt, to say it that way. For example, he ones said, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple (Luke 14:26)." How can Jesus say that? Why doesn't he accept that they love both him and their families?

Another part was in chapter 17 when Jesus made the comparison of a servant with his followers. He asked them if they asked the servant to sit with them after he had worked the field, and said he didn't think so; one told them to serve him and to eat later. He then asked if they thanked the servants, and said he didn't think so. At that moment I thought he was going to say that it was good to be nice to the people who serve you, but what he said instead was that they should expect him to act like that with them, and say that they were "unprofitable servants," and had "done that which was [their] duty to do (Luke 17:10)." I find that extremely unfair and arrogant.

Also, I found more examples of stories like the one of Mary and her sister from the last post that are unjust and not understandable for me. This time, it was a story about a father and his two sons. One followed by him his whole life and served him, and his father treated him like a servant. The other instead, took all the money and used it for personal purposes. The day that son came back, his father made a really big party with everything included. The good son didn't understand why, and I don't either.

Anyways, there had to be some part I agreed with. There was this quote I really liked, and I think that if everyone followed it the world would be a better place: "And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him. (Luke 17:4)"

By now, it is the third time we hear Jesus predict he will die, "And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. (Luke 18:33)" Still, I keep waiting and waiting for it to happen and it never does. I don't know when it will be, or even how he knows, but it sounds like a pretty harsh death. I can't wait to see how the different versions of his death compare.

I also mentioned before that I thought the priests and Jesus didn't get along very well, but I never thought it would get to this: "But the chief priests and the scribes and the chief of the people sought to destroy him. (Luke 19:47)" They want to kill him! I don't know if it is true or not, but a small voice in my head tells me that the priests are the ones who will be responsible for Jesus' death.

See you later!

The Healing Man

Ch. 9-13
First, if I had to choose one word describing what Jesus did with his life it would be healing. For the most part, all that the gospel said was that Jesus went this way and that healing people everywhere he went. It didn't matter if you had a stomach ache or if your ear had been cut off; Jesus could make everything better for you.

There were many things I liked, many things I didn't understand, and many things I don't agree with. As I'm not sure how to put everything out there, I will just put everything as they start appearing in the text.

The first thing I didn't understand was how this is possible: "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God. (Luke 9:27)." If I understand correctly, the Kingdom of God is Heaven, and how can one see Heaven without dying?

I have to notice that Jesus wasn't exactly a calmed man his whole life. Even though he did have many peace moments, he could lose it sometimes also. "And Jesus answering said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you, and suffer you? (Luke 9:41)"

I also have to accept that Jesus is a great man, and that he is very intelligent, but throughout the Gospel I didn't have much proof that told me his apostles were too. Instead, I had proof they were a little dumb. "Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest. (Luke 9:46)" and "And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. (Luke 9:48)." Why would they stop someone who was trying to save someone else from the devil just because they are not part of his little club? And why would they fight about who is the best? I find that a little immature.

As I previously mentioned, Jesus didn't have his emotions exactly right, and in my opinion he could sometimes be a little mean with people who hadn't done anything wrong and were just normal people, like this guy, "...Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house. And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God (Luke 9:62)."

There are parts in the story where I don't think Jesus is being such an exemplary man, or at least, I am not smart enough to understand his reasoning. In this story, he tells the sister who is working that the other sister, who was doing nothing, was doing the right thing. Why? Don't ask me! "Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me. And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: 42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her (Luke 10:41)." And talking about stories, I have noticed that in all past books we have read, there is always a way in which we are presented the "teachings." In this one, it is very noticeable that the way they will tell us everything is in the form of stories. I actually like it, so I'm not going to say anything bad about it.

Here is a line that I want to share with you, not because I completely understand it, but because I think its meaning is very pretty and it can be related with many aspects of life: "No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light (Luke 11:33)."

Something else that becomes more and more obvious as I read the Gospel is that the priests and Jesus don't exactly like each other. In fact, I think it was them who crucified Jesus, and Jesus is also insulting them at times. Here is a clear example: "Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered (Luke 11:52)." By the way, this is only true if "lawyers" is "priests," which I think they are.

The last thing that I want to mentioned that I have been seeing throughout it all is that in everything revolving around faith, and what is expected of you by Jesus, is that the poor have it a lot easier than the rich. Jesus is always saying that they have to get rid of everything you have in order to be faithful, which isn't that easy if you have spent all your life cultivating your richness. It is a lot easier if you don't have anything. It also mentions how Jesus-followers didn't have to take food or anything that was part of their daily necessities, because the Lord knew what they needed and would give it to them.

That's about it! See you soon!

Defying God's Actions

Today I read from the 3rd to the 8th chapter of the Gospel of Luke, and I got a lot more to talk about. There are many things I want to tell you.

First, the Bible had another one of those say-everything-without-summarizing-in-extremely-too-much-detail moments. It has been happening more than I wish it did, but well, those were other times when it was written. What I did like was the reason why it was done. It started saying who Jesus was son of, and who his father's father was, until it got to God. "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God (3: 38)." I think it was cool and all, but why take the trouble of making such a list of names? It was about 2 pages long! Those people seriously needed to get a life. I'm sorry if I'm disrespectful, but it's true.

There are many parts that I found interesting, and fun. Again we are introduced to the topic of temptation that has been present in the bible since the beginning of humans. This time, the devil tries over and over again to tempt Jesus into following someone else that is not God, but Jesus knows the way and doesn't let himself be tempted.

Another interesting thing I found is something that I knew before, but I don't yet understand. I always knew that Jesus was Jewish, but the only difference that I am sure about between Judaism and Catholicism is that Jews don't believe in Jesus. How can Jesus not believe in himself? Wouldn't that make him into a Catholic? "And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all (15)."

I also found really interesting to see people's response to forgiving sinning. No one liked it when Jesus said he could forgive sinning, because that was something that supposedly only God could do, but anyways they accepted everything else. I don't get why they would accept healing people, if the one who made them be sick, blind, or dead was God Himself. Why would they accept Jesus to change what God had done but not do something God would have done anyway? Something tells me no one had realized Jesus was undoing all of God's deeds.

I find this very funny, but worrying at the same time, that if one wants to make one miserable, they will reach any extent to accomplish their task "And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the Sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him." The Jesus haters would have done anything to make him feel bad. That is something that can be related with famous people of the moment. They all have haters, who would reach any extent to make them feel bad in any way possible.

There were also some things I had never heard of in the story, which I think I probably should have known. One of them was that I had no idea one of the 12 apostles had been a traitor. I thought all of them followed Jesus and lived happily ever after. That was something I didn't even expect. I also didn't know that Jesus could make people come back from the dead. I knew he had healing powers and all, but I didn't know he could, as I said before, change God's will.

Something that I really liked was the whole speech of "be nice to your enemy." I thought it was really true, and that is something that I hadn't said since the teachings of the Tao Te Ching. It was inspiring, and everything they said is something that if you follow yourself you are going to do very good in life. I like the fact that Jesus is not a tattletale, and if someone does something wrong then he will just make that wrong right. Anyways, I think his ego is too high. He seems to think he is great, and even if he is, he shouldn't act like that. Just saying.

Something I don't like about Catholicism that men are a lot more important than animals. I think animals are also living beings and deserve to be treated with respect, not like Jesus and the devil do. "Then went the devils out of the man, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were choked." Even if they are just pigs, they have a life, and in my opinion, they deserve to live it.

That is about it in what I have to say about chapters 3-8 in the Gospel of Luke, but be sure to check in for more as I read more of it!

Right Where We Left Off

Hello! Well, this post won't be that long, because I didn't read that much today, but I promise tomorrow's post will be a little longer. So, it seems like we are back to the Bible. After not reading it for about a month, we went back to the Gospels. The class is divided into four groups, so I will be reading one Gospel each week. This week's Gospel is The Bible According to Luke.

As you surely know if you read my past posts, I am not a Catholic, and I am pretty ignorant about some catholic things. For example, I had no idea what the gospels were, and I had to be reminded who were Luke, Matthew, Mark, and, well, the other one. If I didn't know, you might not know either, so I will explain. The gospels are Jesus' story from 4 different points of view. They are the story told as remembered by each of the 4 people. So I will be telling you the story of Jesus four times in the next month, and comparing the four different versions.

The gospel of Luke started in chapter 1 starts with the story of John's and Jesus' mom. It talks about how they both weren't expecting any kids, and the angel Gabriel spoke to them telling them that God wanted them to have kids, so they would, and they had to name them Jesus and John respectively. I hadn't really heard before the story of neither John nor Jesus, so I am really excited to know them how they really were and to see the differences in the versions.

Something that I didn't like, but I kind of did expect, was the thing about having to name their children how God wanted them to. "1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS." I mean, it had happened before, but I had no idea that the name Jesus was an obligation. I always thought they had named him in honor of God or a family member, not because Gabriel had said so. I find it very interesting, but sad that God is so strict. Anyways, I don't think it was something bad for Mary in that moment, so I'll let it be.

Next, in the second chapter, there was a little more story about Jesus. Before, I thought I would at least know a lot about Jesus' life. Instead, I am realizing that what I know is really little. Anyways, in this chapter, Jesus gets lost. I had no idea that had happened. Deep inside, I know that Jesus didn't really get lost. Even though his parents didn't know where he was, I am sure he always knew where he was himself. I am not sure, but that is my guess.

See you next time! And do expect more writing!

If You Don't Know What to Do Next, Don't Do Anything

I can't believe we finished another book already. For me, it was very fast. And I have to say I learned a lot; possibly more than with the rest of the books we have read. I also enjoyed it more than the rest, and I believe in most of its teachings.

The first thing I want to say is that if I could summarize the whole book into one major word or teaching it would be non-action. It is just mentioned the greatest number of times throughout the book, and everything said seems to add up to it. They are always saying things like "the world is ruled by letting things take their course (48)" or "...when nothing is done, nothing is left undone (48)." I think I actually like that they are like that, because most religions or philosophies would ask you to do something, which after all might be more difficult than not doing anything.

I don't have that much quotes today because the majority of the teachings could be put in the category of inaction. Anyways, I do have some I would like to share with you. The first is about something I could compare with Buddhism, like the many things I've compared to it until now. "In the pursuit of Tao, every day something is dropped (48)." I liked this concept a lot, because it is the one of detachment, which Buddhism so strongly believes in. It is a different way of looking at life that says that you should "drop" all your stuff and the things you are attached to to be able to be happy.

The next quote answers some questions, and is very interesting to me. It goes like this, "Those who know do not talk. / Those who talk do not know (56)." I really like this, because all my life I have seen the pattern that many people who know a lot are not very social and don't like to talk much. I don't know if having no friends is what Lao meant, but that is what I think of this quote, and my interpretation of it. Also, in that same teaching there was a quote that said "...Mask your brightness (56)." That was something that genuinely surprised me. I didn't know that the Tao didn't want you to show off your intelligence and what you know. I thought they would want you to spread it and tell people so that they would be into the Tao also.

I want to share this line with you specifically because I think it is very pretty, and others might enjoy reading as much as I did: "A tree as great as a man's embrace springs from a small shoot; / A terrace nine stories high begins with a pile of earth; / A journey of a thousand miles starts from one's feet (64)." I think it is very pretty, because it is much like the line we have been told all our lives of "it all starts with a grain of sand." I don't have much to say about it; I just hope everyone sees its beauty as much as I do.

I'm not sure if this is called that way, but I like the "alliteration" made in the following lines, along with their meaning: "Knowing ignorance is strength. / Ignoring knowledge is sickness. / If one is sick of sickness, then one is not sick. / The sage is not sick because he is sick of sickness. / Therefore he is not sick (71)." I like how it repeats the words, and I completely agree that "Knowing ignorance is strength." I really liked that line.

Finally, we have gotten to my last analysis of the Tao Te Ching. I wasn't going to put more, but this one got my attention so much that I had to put it. "Why do people think so little of death? / Because the rulers demand too much of life (75)." I really liked it, because I had never really stopped to think about it. I hadn't realized that many times we don't have time to think about death, because we are so caught up in life.

I want to finish my last post not with an analysis, but with a simple quote from its last teaching. Hope you enjoy it! "Truthful words are not beautiful; / Beautiful words are not truthful. / Good men do not argue; / Those who argue are not good. / Those who know are not learned; / The learned do not know (81)."

The True Meaning of Life

Hello! Well, we are almost done with the Tao, but I still have some maxims to cover. You know my method, so I will just go right on with it.

The first quote I want to talks about something which I am not sure if I already discussed, but if I didn't I would like to say it, because I find it very important. "Therefore the sage avoids extremes, excesses, and complacency. (29)" I like this line, because in the Analects, people who were following "the way" and knew what to do were called gentlemen, while the people in the Tao who are like that are called sages. I like how it is very direct and it says exactly what people should do.

The next line, in my opinion, is really nice, because it is true, and it can be said in many different situations. "If you rejoice in victory, then you delight in killing; / If you delight in killing, you cannot fulfill yourself. (32)" I like how it can be about sports, because if you enjoy winning, then you enjoy making others lose, and if you like that, then you "cannot fulfill yourself."

The next one is one of my favorite quotes in the whole book, because I completely agree with it. It goes like this: "Knowing others is wisdom; /Knowing the self is enlightenment. / Mastering others requires force; / Mastering the self needs strength. / He who knows he has enough is rich. / ...To die but not to perish is to be eternally present. (33)" I know it is long, but I just found it so true that I couldn't resist to put it all. I think it is true, because people believe that they are powerful when they can change other people, but they don't realize they are more powerful when they can change themselves. Also, knowing yourself is more difficult than knowing others. I also like what is says about being rich when you believe you have enough. I think that if one completely follows the Tao, they will be happy.

This one is also one of those -wow- quotes. "A truly good man does nothing, / Yet leaves nothing undone. / A foolish man is always doing, / Yet much remains to be done. (38)" I really liked this, because it is true that when someone doesn't know what they are doing, they can do and do and do but they will never really be doing anything. I notice how it is different from the Analects, because it never really says to not do anything. I still don't know how not doing anything won't leave anything undone, but I liked it anyways.

The fortieth teaching (or whatever they are), was the shortest one yet. I liked it because even if it only had 4 lines, I read it and re-read it and still couldn't figure out what it meant. I still don't know, so there is not much I can say about it. I will leave it to you in case you want to analyze it yourself. Anyways, if you understand it, comment. "Returning is the motion of the Tao. / Yielding is the way of the Tao. / The ten thousand things are born of being. / Being is born of not being. (40)"

My almost-last quote is interesting because it talks about something that should have been mentioned a long time ago, but interestingly it is the first time it is actually talked about. "The ten thousand things carry yin and embrace yang. They achieve harmony by combining these forces. (42)" The symbol of the Tao Te Ching is the yin-yang, so one would expect it to be mentioned a lot. As I said, it is the first time I read about it. Anyways, it says that it is in everything, and they are included in all things.

Now, we have reached the moment of my last line. It is one of the last lines in what I read today, but it still is really true. "...Therefore he who knows that enough is enough will always have enough. (46)" I liked this line, because it is a lot like the other quote about he who knows he has enough is rich. If one is always trying to have more, then they will never be satisfied. Instead, if you think with what you have enough, you will be happy.

Not That Different

I have been liking the Tao a lot. The most important thing that I realized while reading these parts of the Tao was that it was not as different from other eastern religions. I thought that just because they were different, their ideals would completely differ from each other, but that doesn't seem to be the case according to the religious texts we have read until now.

As I know other people think also, reading the Tao is very easy, and most of the teachings are interesting and easy to understand. There were some quotes and things that I really liked a lot, which I can't wait to share with you.

The first is said right at the beginning of what we had to read for today, and it is as follows: "What do you mean by "Accept misfortune as the human condition?" / Misfortune comes from having a body. / Without a body, how could there be misfortune? (13)" I definitely liked this a lot, because it mentions something that is critical in Buddhism. Buddhism says that if you are completely away from your body, then you won't be exposed to normal suffering like pain, sickness, and death. Whenever you understand that the body doesn't have a mind, but the mind has a body to use merely as a tool, then you will stop being vulnerable to suffering. I liked a lot that the Tao made a reference to this Buddhist idea.

The next thing I want to talk about is more of a question than a comment. "The ancient masters were subtle, mysterious, profound, responsive. (15)" I don't understand who the "ancient masters" refers to. Didn't Lao-Tsu write this? Wasn't he an "ancient master?" That is something I would like to know, or understand if Lao was just like a person who interpreted the teachings of ancient masters, or if he was one himself.

What I was interested in after that is also kind of a question. "Give up learning, and put an end to your troubles. (20)" This quote was strange to me, because I think I have liked all quotes and teachings in the Tao except this one. I don't understand if by "learning" they mean learning the Tao also, or what types of learning they want followers to stop having. It is weird that a religious text says not to learn.

Something that was really surprising was that I thought that the narrator of the book until now was Lao-Tsu, but I don't think he would say this: "Others have more than they need, but I alone have nothing. / I am a fool. Oh yes! I am confused. (20)" I don't really think the narrator is confused, because just by writing the book I am sure a lot of things are understandable.

The next line has been said over and over again in these poems, and I am not very sure why: "He who does not trust enough / Will not be trusted. (23)" I know this quote is important, and I understand its meaning, it's just that I don't know why they have to repeat it. There are many quotes that are important and all, but I don't think any is repeated as much as this one. I wonder why it is so special.

This line is very interesting, because it can connect with one of the things I said some paragraphs ago that questions the narrator's authority in the Tao religion. "According to the followers of the Tao, "These are extra food / and unnecessary luggage... (24)" Again I wonder why the narrator doesn't include himself in the "followers of the Tao." Wow, this is getting very strange.

The last quote I want to share today is one that I think is very pretty, and it makes lots of sense. "Know the white, / But keep the black! / Be an example to the world! (28)" I really like this, because it means that you have to be good, but not forget that bad exists. You have to keep your eyes open to be able to differentiate between black and white, but not let yourself be influenced. I leave you with that quote!

From Confucius to Lao-tzu

I know what you are thinking. Wow you guys read fast! Every week a new book. Well, this time it is the Tao Te Ching. I am starting to notice that before they made us read longer and longer books every time, but now it is shorter but more complex books.

Anyways, until there is a book written in chronological order to blog about, I will keep my quote-reaction-quote-reaction way of analyzing the chapters.

The first quote I want to talk about is at the beginning of the Tao. "Therefore having and not having complement arise together. / difficult and easy complement each other. / Long and short contrast each other; / High and low rest upon each other; / Voice and sound harmonize each other; / Front and back follow one another (Chapter 2)" I like this quote a lot. It was something I have been told all my life, which surprisingly works for many of the quotes in this book. Every time I asked why ugly people existed or something when I was little, they answered that if there were no ugly people, there wouldn't be any pretty people either. The same concept is used here.

Something that I have been liking a lot from this book is that it is a lot easier to understand than the Confucian Analects. If you want to know what they believe in, you don't have ti search all over and interpret the text, but you only have to read it and understand. "The wise therefore rule by emptying hearts and stuffing bellies, by weakening ambitions and strengthening bones. (Chapter 3)" I like this quote because it says that desires and excessive feelings aren't good, but making your body stronger is.

The next quote I would like to talk about is this: "Heaven and Earth last forever. / Why do heaven and earth last forever? / They are unborn, / so ever leaving. (Chapter 7)." I like this teaching because it is very Buddhist. It says that heaven and earth were never created so therefore can never be destroyed, and that is exactly what Buddhism says.

The next quote I thought was very pretty, and I think it will be my last for today. It says this: "The highest good is like water. / Water gives life to the ten thousand things and does not strive. / It flows in places men reject and so is like the Tao. (Chapter 8)" I liked this quote a lot because of the water simile, and also because I learned a new vocabulary word. I had no idea what the Tao Te Ching meant, but at least now I know that Tao means "the highest good." It must be what Taoists want to achieve.

I think that the poems or whatever they are from this book are really nice. I really like them and I think that most of what they say is true according to my ideals. I know I have said this a lot, but I find it impressive that many of the things we say today come from these ancient texts that according to us we don't even believe in. Check again.

The only way to get onto a hilltop and observe back to know where we came form is to abandon faith by using our unique ability to reason. I am definitely on the side of evolution in the Scopes Trial. The bible contradicts itself, and the book of Genesis doesn’t support other book’s ideas. There are many reasons why it is much more reasonable to believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution than that God created the Earth, and I will now prove to you why.

First off, it is unfair that the side Brady’s in discusses against the theory of evolution, when it is evident that if it is prohibited to teach about it, they have no idea what it is about. If they at least gave an opportunity to be taught about it, then it would be fair, but they can’t fight against something they don’t know.

As Drummond found out, the lawyer of the side of the divine creation, aside from not knowing anything about the theory of evolution, he didn’t know about the bible or the book of Genesis. One of the biggest questions in this debate was if the bible should be taken literally or as a myth. Brady said that it should be taken literally, but he didn’t realize even the characters from the bible committed sins. It is said that sex is a sin, but using other words, the characters from the bible had sex a lot. “And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan: 10 And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters: 11. And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.” How can one still say the bible should be taken literally if it is said that people live 815 years? No one lives that much, and especially not on those times.

Something else that proves that it is not literally true is that people appear out of nowhere. “17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch (4:17)” Up until that point in the book of Genesis, only four people were alive: true created by God, Adam and Eve; and two created by them, Cain and Abel. Out of nowhere, Cain’s wife is introduced into the story. If it not a weird sister not mentioned or something, then the bible just invented a character that came out of nowhere. That is why people should believe that the bible was made to be taken like a myth.

It is also not very convincing if the opposing team doesn’t know exactly what they are defending. If God created the Earth and men, then who created the rest of the world? This universe? Other universes? If He did, then He was the one who gave every animal and creature their own qualities, being the one of humans the ability to reason. It is certain the God wanted people to do something with their minds, including asking themselves life’s questions.

With only these reasons, I am completely on the side of the theory of Darwin. There is no reason that we should not believe what we find with our advances in technology. It is as if we found the cure for cancer one day and the next we continued using herbs and other things that don’t work as well. It was fine in the times when the bible was written that they believed in the divine creation because they didn’t have any more options, but now it is considered way too old fashioned.

A Different Point of View

Hello! I want to start this post by saying that right now I'm feeling a little tired, so I'm sorry if my analysis aren't as good as they should be. The next thing I want to get to is that I found in these chapters that Confucius' whole name is Confucius Lu. I had no idea, and I think it is a really funny name.

Now that I got that out of the way, and before I fall into my normal routine of quote-response-quote-response, I want to say that I noticed a huge change in the way it was written. Since the beginning of these chapters, I have been seeing that the writing style is different, and the word choice changed also. I think now the words are written in a lower level; easier to understand. I specifically noticed a change in chapter 18, where it seems as though it was a story in chronological. That had never happened before in the Analects. It is also very short, which is why I wasn't able to get quotes from it.

I have no idea why the writing would change, or if it's just my imagination, but I personally think it is just part of the translation. It might be that the translator stopped writing it for some time, and when he went back to it, he wrote it differently. I don't know, but in any case the literary techniques used and the whole writing piece in general were completely changed in a matter of chapters.

Anyways, I said that, and now I will go back to analyzing it by picking out the most interesting quotes. First I would like to look at this one: "15.28 When the multitude hates a person, you must examine them and judge for yourself. The same holds true for someone who the multitude loves." I like this quote because I think it can still be adapted and used in this moment, and I think it always will. There will always be people who the multitude loves/hates, and people will base their opinions of them on the rest of the population, who did the same. It becomes a giant snowball. We should learn to decide and take our own decisions without having to base them on what society thinks.

The next quote is very pretty: "15.30 To make a mistake and yet to not change your ways -- this is what is called truly making a mistake." I love this because it is very true. People think that it is okay to do mistakes over and over again because "we are humans, and humans make mistakes," but what they don't realize is that making a mistake ones is fine, but making it twice is the bigger mistake. Not being able to learn from your mistakes and change what you did next time is a very serious problem, and not trying to fix it is a mistake.

My next quote is one of the only quotes in which I disagree with what is says. "17.3 Only the very wise and the very stupid do not change." I agree that maybe the very stupid do not change, but I absolutely don't agree that the wise don't change. Learning is change, and wise people learn. I think they are changing all the time, which is in fact the reason why they are able to be wise. And again as always, I wonder if it was a translating error or if the Chinese writer meant for it to be that way.

Because chapters 15, 17, and 18 where so short, I find that I only have one more quote to discuss, and I'll be leaving. It is this: "17.10 Have you mastered the Odes from the "South of Zhou" and the "South of Shao?" A man who has not mastered the "South of Zhou" and the "South of Shao" is like someone standing with his face to a wall, is he not?" By the description of the south things, it seems as though they were very important things. I don't actually understand how something that important is mentioned, but it is not previously explained. They should at least give us a hint at what it is, and not make us guess what this oh-so-very-important thing is.

As with practically every book we have read, I have many things to criticize about the Analects, but as far as we have gone, I think I personally like to discuss different religions and cultures.

A Confucian Republic

The Clearly Lucid Republic
Population: The Confused
Government: Virtuous Dictatorship

Our 6 Commandments:
1. What I do not wish others to undo unto me, I also wish not to do unto others
2. No child shall raise his voice to his elders, or he will be punished.
3. Use ritual in all your daily actions.
4. Be a virtuous human being.
5. Respect your Masters and your Superiors.
6. Everything you do must help you to find the Way

Flag:

Confused? Let Confucius Help You Out!

I want to start this post by saying this: I don't understand the context. I understand most of the teachings, and I understand that it is not in chronological order, but I don't get the context. Where are they? Why are there many Masters? Which Master is the most important one? Or are they all of the same importance? Who are the people they are giving these teachings to? I am very sorry if at any moment I interpret something wrong, because until now, I have no idea who is who.

On the last post, my technique of describing and interpreting interesting quotes one by one worked pretty well, so I will do the same today. I want to start with a quote from chapter 7: "7.30 Is Goodness really so far away? If I simply desire Goodness, I will find that it is already here." I thought this quote was really interesting. Throughout these first chapters, the book has given me the impression that what every human should be aiming for is Goodness. They make it sound as if it was really difficult to get there, and as if only some people were Good. But with this quote, what they are telling us is that the only thing you have to do to achieve Goodness is to desire it. That was pretty cool to discover.

In this next quote I discovered something I didn't know before: "7.35 The Master was seriously ill, and Zilu asked permission to offer a prayer." I liked knowing that Confucians also pray. I thought they might have some other method or thing that they did, something like meditating, but now I realize they also pray. I still wonder who they pray to though.

Something that I found funny was that always, in the beginning of each chapter, the translator has included a description, that is about a paragraph long and that says what the teaching was about in each chapter. For the case of chapter 8, the description is like this: "This book does not seem to have a clear thematic or focus." I thought it was funny, and that for a person who could translate all that and describe each book, I think they could have done a lot better.

I liked this teaching a lot: "8.2 If you are respectful but lack ritual you will become exasperating; if you are careful but lack ritual you will become timid; if you are courageous but lack ritual you will become unruly; and if you are upright but lack ritual you will become inflexible." I liked it very much, but I have to accept that I don't quite understand the meaning of ritual in this specific context. Does it mean following you culture and religion? Is it something specific that people who follow the Confucian religion have to do? I will ask and I will get back to it some other day.

This next quote I think is one of the ones I have liked the most until now. "11.12 May I inquire about death? / You do not yet understand life -- how could you possibly understand death?" I think the reason why I liked this quote the most is because I have always cared a lot about death, and it is something that has been in my life all the time. Until now I realize that it is very difficult to understand death if you don't yet understand life, and it is very few the number of people who can truly understand life and its meaning. That means that almost no one can understand death. Figures.

The last quote I want to talk about is very short, and it sort of answers one of my questions at the beginning of the post. "11.26 Zilu, Zengxi, Ran Qiu, and Zihua were seated in attendance." This answers the question of who is more important than whom, because I at least know that the ones mentioned are only students. I also know that it is in the format of a class being given to students by their Confucian Masters. I still have to figure out what Master is more important than the others.

New Week, New Book

As you might have already noticed, we started a new book. For now, no more Bible! The new book is called the Analects, and it is a series of teachings of the Confucian religion in non-chronological order. Until now, I can see that the way it is written looks a lot like the Bhagavad-Gita, and some of the teachings do too. I hope I get to understand all of it so that I can really compare both books.

The first thing I want to say is that I didn't like how it was monotonous. Remember at the beginning of the Bible that everything started with "And"? Well, in the Analects everything starts with "The Master said." I don't like how this sounds, although maybe it is a problem of the translation and not of the book itself, because it might be that it doesn't sound so monotonous in Chinese.

Next, I would like to state that because it is not in chronological order, I had no idea how to write this post. That is why I decided that I will just pick quotes and teachings that I find interesting along the way.

My first quote will be this one: "4.2 The Master said, "Without Goodnes, one cannot remain constant in adversity and cannot enjoy enduring happiness. / Those who are Good feel at home in Goodness, whereas those who are clever follow Goodness because they feel that they will profit from it." I liked this quote because it is something that is shared with my religion: Buddhism. We also believe that there are people who are good for a personal benefit or profit, and not thinking about others, so those people don't enjoy the benefits of good Karma.

Another quote that I liked a lot stated that you should "4.7 ...Observe closely the sort of mistakes a person makes -- then you will know his character." I found this quote pretty interesting, because I also believe in it. Before, I hadn't spent the time analyzing it, but now I realize that it is true. One of the most important factors that describe a person's personality is the mistakes they make. Different types of people make different mistakes.

The next quote I am pretty sure most of you will recognize: "5.12 What I do not wish others to undo unto me, I also wish not to do unto others." For me it is impressive that a quote so known to people since they are at an early age could go so far back, and actually be part of the laws of an old religion. It is also interesting to compare cultures, but to notice that there are many things and accepted ideas that are worldwide, and don't change from one country to the other.

The next quote I want to talk about is interesting, because I didn't pick it for its real content but for its literary content. It says: "6.5 ...Do not decline it! [If you do not need it yourself,] could you not use it to aid the households in your neighborhood?" I wonder why the bracketed part is in brackets. Why would the translator include something like that? In the original version, it seems as if even if you needed it you should give it away, while in the translation it very clearly states that only if you don't needed you should give it away. Weird.

"6.18 When native substance overwhelms cultural refinement, the result is a crude rustic. When cultural refinement overwhelms native substance, the result is a foppish pedant. Only when culture and native substance are perfectly mixed and balanced do you have a gentleman." I like this quote, because I think it is true, and I really like how it makes the comparison. It is very deep and it has a meaning that you really have to search for.

So, I think those are the quotes that most impacted me from chapters 4, 5 and 6 in the Analects. I will talk to you later about the rest of the chapters!

The Psalm -- Whatever That Means

As you might have already guessed by the title, I didn't know what a Psalm was before reading this. You might call me ignorant, but that is just the way it is. Just for if someone reading this doesn't know what it means either, you can check the definition, which is one of the songs, hymns, prayers, or poems contained in the Book of Psalms. Because we were asked to read 4 different psalms not in chronological order, I will talk about each of them separately.

First came Psalm 23. I feel that David is very happy with being preferred by the Lord. In the First Book of Samuel you can see how the Lord prefers David over Saul, and makes everything he wishes for happen. If I was David, I probably would also be as grateful and write him a poem. I hope his optimism is apt, because if this isn't satisfied, David will be in great trouble: "23:6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever."

The next Psalm I was asked to read was Psalm 42. In this psalm I have to say that as a reader you have to start wondering why God doesn't help normal men as much as would be expected from a creator. Always in history we have seen examples of people suffering who dedicate their lives praying to God that all will be better, but as far as I know in the majority of the cases nothing happens. For example, during the Holocaust, many innocent people who prayed to God every day died suffering.

We can see this a little when it says: "42:11 Why art thou cast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted within me? hope thou in God: for I shall yet praise him, who is the health of my countenance, and my God." I don't want to believe it, but something tells me that he won't receive what he is looking for.

Next up: Psalm 51. In my opinion, this has been the most boring psalm yet. It was all about David saying sorry and asking God to forgive me, but I didn't like it. Always when this happens, I am not sure if people are just doing it to be on God's good people list, or if they really mean it. "51:14 Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness." Is this really true? I don't know but David might just come out, turn around, and go kill someone else. Although coming from a time period when God just appeared in front of everyone and did whatever he wanted, it might be that people took religion a lot more serious than they do now.

The last psalm we have to read is Psalm 137. Why we skipped so much I don't know, but I'm not going to argue. Because this is the first psalm that doesn't include a description before it, I don't understand much. Without the background info, I don't think I get what this psalm is about.

What I was able to recall was that it was about this people who had been asked to sing a song of Zion, and they did. It said that if they forgot Jerusalem many bad things could happen to them, and then it remembered the day when the army of Babylon captured Jerusalem. I don't understand its point, but it wasn't that bad.

I think I like the psalms, mostly because they are short and easy to understand. I like how in most cases they give background information so that you can know what they are talking about. I also liked how they talk about many different parts of the Bible. Even though it was interesting, thank God we are almost done with the Bible (Ironic, huh?)!

David's Morality

I have to start this post by saying that I didn't like the second book of Samuel as much as I liked the first. I think the first book was a lot better as far as contents goes, because it was much more interesting and was only one story, not just anything that happened to David in those days.

The first thing I want to talk about is David's age. I personally thought that with so many things that have happened already David would be older, but I was surprised to see he was only 30. Maybe they are just telling the whole story without skipping irrelevant parts, like we do now.

I want to say that before, I was convinced that God's predictions would always be right, so David should do what God says. Now, every time I read about David asking God what will happen, I find myself doubting if it is real or not. Ever since that time when God was wrong, I haven't been trusted him quite as much.

I don't get the real meaning of this phrase: "6:1 Again, David gathered together all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand." What does "chosen men" mean? I don't understand if it just means everyone, or if it is men chosen in some sort of ritual or something. I wonder if they are David's chosen ones, or God's.

Something else that I don't understand is this: "6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death." Didn't David have kids with her, or am I confusing everything?

I think one of the main reasons I didn't like this book as much as the other one was because in this one, every chapter started with "and it came to pass..." Which means that they are telling the whole story of David without avoiding any extra parts. I wish the would focus on the important parts and leave the rest.

I like this line: "11:27 And when the mourning was past, David sent and fetched her to his house, and she became his wife, and bare him a son. But the thing that David had done displeased the LORD." I always thought it was unfair with the women that as soon as their husband was dead David was there to sleep with them. I'm glad God finally understood the wrongness in this and dissaproves of it. I hope he can make David notice that it isn't good.

It was a little strange when Ahithopel, the advisor, saw that they weren't following his advice, he killed himself. I think that is taking it too far. I understand he loved his job and liked being the advisor and all, but if they didn't follow it did he have to kill himself? I personally would have preferred to live.

There is, anyways, a part in which Nathan for the first time makes David realize that he is not the saint even he thought he was. I don't think he realized that even though he wasn't killing his enemy, he was being a bad person, because he killed men to be with their woman, and as said by Nathan, he "hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon." Nathan very clearly tells his that he has "despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight".

At the beginning, I thought David was a nice man. I think he sees himself as a righteous man also. What he and the others don't realize is that he only doesn't do the bad things that are in front of other people, like killing his enemy, but does more quiet things that aren't really important for the rest of the world.

He does things that I suppose are correct according to his morality, and to the time period we are talking about, like marrying with many people and taking as wives women who just had their husbands killed, sometimes even by David himself. I can't believe that this was culturally accepted in those times.

So David might be morally correct for himself, but for me personally he is using fallacies and rhetoric to convince people that he is the best. I hope David learns how to be modern, because I don't agree with his points of view.

Another Battle: Saul Vs. David

I have to start this post saying that I really liked this story. I think it has been the best story in the Bible yet. It always kept my interest. I liked how it was very human in a way, and how someone was always on the verge of danger.

The first thing I liked was that Goliath and the Philistinth army defied the other army. It started on a good note. It was interesting and from that beginning I already wanted to know which warrior won the battle. Anyways, when David fought against him, I thought it was very dumb how he won. "17:50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David." That just doesn't happen; not even in fiction.

I don't like how Saul is so jealous. If it wasn't because of that, the whole problem could have been avoided. It is very selfish and a little stupid on his part when he says: "18:7 And the women answered one another as they played, and said, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands. 18:8 And Saul was very wroth, and the saying displeased him; and he said, They have ascribed unto David ten thousands, and to me they have ascribed but thousands: and what can he have more but the kingdom?"

It is very unfair how Saul makes David do things that he knows are impossible, even if David somehow manages to accomplish them because he has God's approval. I don't like Saul's attitude of being better.

At the beginning it took me some time to understand who Michal was, but I finally understood that she is David's wife. I like how she does the thing of putting goat hair on the pillow so that it seems like he is there. That is something that we still do today to cover up people.

I think that it is very unfair, which I have noticed is a word I use a lot in all my posts, that because one priest gave away David's location Saul had to kill so many. It is inhuman, and that makes me dislike him just that more. I can't believe David likes him! "22:18 And the king said to Doeg, Turn thou, and fall upon the priests. And Doeg the Edomite turned, and he fell upon the priests, and slew on that day fourscore and five persons that did wear a linen ephod. 22:19 And Nob, the city of the priests, smote he with the edge of the sword, both men and women, children and sucklings, and oxen, and asses, and sheep, with the edge of the sword."

It was a little weird and unexpected that in one part where David asked God what was going to happen, he answered that David would follow him and that they would betray him, but in the end they didn't even go. If God is so powerful, why didn't he know what would happen in the end? I don't think I trust his predictions anymore.

Although I have grown to realize that culture was different in those times, I didn't expect that as soon as someone's husband died, a complete stranger could take the girl as his wife if she agreed to it, like happened with Abigail. She didn't even mourn for her ex, but went right on to marry David. To me that means that love didn't mean as much in those times.

It was weird how Saul died, and David cried for him. If I was him, I would have been happy that he was no longer prosecuting me! It was also weird how he invented that song.

At the beginning of the second Book of Samuel, in chapter 2, I couldn't help noticing how stupid the fight looked. "2:14 And Abner said to Joab, Let the young men now arise, and play before us. And Joab said, Let them arise." Don't you think that sounds stupid?

Well, because this story has been so fun, I can't wait to see what happens in the rest of the second Book of Samuel. You can just be sure of one thing: I will be here to cover it! =)

God vs. Job -- Round 1

When I read the first line in chapters 38-end, I was ready to brace myself for an exciting end of the book. "38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, 38:2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" Doesn't that excite you?

I have to say God shows himself a little selfish and acted like a show off. I can't believe that being God, he couldn't come up with better arguments than stating all he had made and being so proud of it. "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding." He kept the whole time talking about his creations and mentioning how he knew what they wanted and how they acted but Job didn't.

Then, another unexpected thing happened. I never thought I would hear God using sarcasm, but he did. "38:21 Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?" Or I didn't understand what He said, or God used sarcasm on Job! Actually, most of his arguments are exactly like the ones a human would give if they would have created the world.

There is not much else to say, because that is what repeatedly happens throughout the rest of the book of Job. God showing off what he did and what he knows, and blaming Job for daring to be against God if he didn't have as much power as Him. "39:26 Doth the hawk fly by thy wisdom, and stretch her wings toward the south? 39:27 Doth the eagle mount up at thy command, and make her nest on high?" He is basically saying "Did YOU create the earth? Does every creature follow your orders? I don't think so! So don't dare say something against me, because there is no doubt I could take you in a second." And that, I think, is unfair fighting and using the other's weakness in your favor, which should be a sin.

What I liked the least was Job's reaction. I think he would at least stand up for himself for a second, but no. As soon as God finished, Job was kissing his shoes and eating out of his hand. "40:4 Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth." It was clear God had won, and Job wasn't about to do anything about it. Such a baby.

He is not much of a sharer also. "41:11 Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine." That is very selfish from my point of view.

At the end, Job again says he is sorry: "42:6 Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes," and it is clear he has no more arguments. God instead, says he will punish his friends, because they lied about him. But when Job prays for them, God stops his punishment, and gives his richness back. In fact, "42:10 ...the LORD turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends: also the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before." That, I think, is stupid. There goes the whole argument! All the things Job said, all his point of view, for nothing. He suffered for - what - 1 week? Then all his richness was given back to him, and more: God gave him twice as much as he had. That means it was all for nothing.

Oh and by the way, I found out the morale of this story for once. Don't mess with God, because what he wants, he will get, one way or another.

Moral of the Story: Forgive God and He Will Forgive You. Almost.

This will be a long blog post. I am hoping this will entirely cover everything from Chapter 11 through Chapter 37 in the Book of Job. It was a lot of information, so I might miss many things.

I want to start saying that Job was seriously affected by what God did to him. I respect and like in him that he is the only person who has been able to hate and disagree with God, and never change his opinion. Even though his friends tell him not to criticize and to stop saying all those things the whole time, he will never give away.

In this quote I am pretty sure that Job is saying the truth, and that he is completely capable of going onto God and proving his point. "23:3 Oh that I knew where I might find him! that I might come even to his seat! 23:4 I would order my cause before him, and fill my mouth with arguments." I have no doubt that it would happen, although I am pretty sure if God doesn't want him to see Him, he won't. I am really eager to see an argument between them two.

This next quote is something I have also asked myself all the time. I don't understand how poor people or people going through a lot of misery can believe that God is there looking for them, and how the rich can do anything they want and nothing happens to them. "24:12 Men groan from out of the city, and the soul of the wounded crieth out: yet God layeth not folly to them." God doesn't seem to hear anyone calling Him, or do anything about it.

As I said before, I really like that Job says this: "27:5 God forbid that I should justify you: till I die I will not remove mine integrity from me." It proves to me that people can really stand up to God, and I hope he will always maintain his point of view.

I liked also the line when Job said "27:16 Though he heap up silver as the dust, and prepare raiment as the clay; 27:17 He may prepare it, but the just shall put it on, and the innocent shall divide the silver," meaning that even if he gives money to the rich, the poor will divide it all at the end. Anyways, I don't believe it will ever be true.

Another point that Job and his friends talked about was that even if they wanted to fight God, they don't have the wisdom and understanding to prove their point, and only God knows where that understanding can be found.

Then Job continues on fighting that he doesn't think he did anything wrong, and that if he really did, he gave God "permission" to punish him. He promised he hadn't done any of the things they had punished him for doing. He made a reference to the Ten Commandments, which I liked. "31:35 Oh that one would hear me! behold, my desire is, that the Almighty would answer me, and that mine adversary had written a book." He is accepting that he would take it all on himself if he was truly guilty, but that he wasn't.

After all that he said, which in my opinion where mostly valid arguments, all his friends had to say was that because he had said so many mean things and things that God didn't agree with, he should be punished. "34:36 My desire is that Job may be tried unto the end because of his answers for wicked men." There Elihu, one of his friends, is saying that NOW it is correct to punish him because of all he has said.

Now, more than ever, I am seriously hoping to see God coming, because I really want to see what would happen when the two start an argument. Who will win? Probably God: he has an unfair disadvantage.

Word of the Post: Unfair

For me, Job is sad. It is so mean. I don't like it, because it is the using of a human for personal gain and purposes. This quote shows how unfair it is: "While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, Thy sons and thy daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother’s house: And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee (1:19)." This is saying that God basically made Job's life miserable because he didn't believe in him. It is very unfair, that just because he wants to be more powerful than Satan, he does that. On and by the way it is the first time that Satan is mentioned in the Bible. I, being a Buddhist, would have thought that Satan would be a lot more mentioned than he is.

After this, something very unfair also happened. Satan, wanting to be more powerful than God, also took advantage of the situation. He, after God had make Job's life difficult, Satan got involved and decided to put his part also in making his life more difficult than before. "So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown."

After this, you can see that it was very difficult for him to get over it. He is in an extremely depressed state, and not even his friends can make him feel better.

I think Eliphaz the Temanite, one of his friends, is very intelligent because what he said was very cool and I think it really gave strength to Job. He was not mean like God and Satan, which I am very mad at right now. Anyways, it didn't really work, because Job never came out of his depression.

I think he is a little extreme. "After this opened Job his mouth, and cursed his day. And Job spake, and said, Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night in which it was said, There is a man child conceived (3:3)" But of course, who am I to judge? I've never really been cursed by both God and Satan so...

But seriously, he is way too depressed. He should take an antidepressant or something. "My flesh is clothed with worms and clods of dust; my skin is broken, and become loathsome. My days are swifter than a weaver’s shuttle, and are spent without hope (7:6)" He should or get over it, or kill himself (I don't personally recommend the second option).

You can see that even Job himself agrees with me; "I will speak in the anguish of my spirit; I will complain in the bitterness of my soul (7:11)." He is accepting that the only thing he will do about it is complain.

So this is what Job is about, I don't know how it has anything to do with the rest of the Bible, but I will leave Christians to decide that themselves. I am really disappointed in God (although I did expect it from Satan), and I would have thought He had a stronger personality than that. But oh well, let Him be.

The Moses Dictionary

Exodus is literally all about Moses. In the chapters we read, God looks out for Moses and tells him he has to go to Egypt and save the "children of Israel". At the beginning, Moses hides from God, and from all the questions he makes, he seems really insecure about that. He keeps asking God how he will do this and how will he do that; for me it seems like someone else might have done a better job than him. " But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, The LORD hath not appeared unto thee (4:1)."

Seriously, Moses has lots of questions, but God basically answers all of them saying that he can just do magic and things that would surprise the pharaohs in Egypt, so that they would believe he was a messenger of God. Moses' task was to go to Egypt, talk the pharaoh into letting all his people go with some dark help from God, and leave. Even if Moses wasn't too sure about it, he left.

When he finally got to Egypt, as expected, the Pharaoh just said no and wouldn't listen to Moses. He did some of the tricks God had told him to do, like throwing a rod to the floor and as it fell it converted into a snake, and when he touched it, it turned into a rod back again.

The pharaoh still didn't believe him, so God, Moses, and the person who was in charge of all the talking, Aaron, had to take extreme measures. That was when God sent them the 10 plagues, in which the water turned into blood, frogs, lice, flies, livestock diseased, boils, thunder and hail, locusts, darkness, and the death of the firstborn. Basically, any civilization would be dead if they were put to these ten plagues. So as one might expect, the pharaoh gave in and they agreed to give them back their people. God institutes some rules, and after everyone was recovered back, they sang in joy to God.

Later, God gave the commandments, which in my opinion are the exact reason why Exodus is famous. Moses repeated some commandments, and until there we read.

This is a pretty known story, and it is really nice. I don't think it is fair that God could do all these to the innocent people in Egypt, just because the pharaoh wasn't kind enough to let the Israel people out. That is my opinion but I think I might be the only person in the world who thinks that. So yeah, see you later!

Oh Wow.

As the title says, oh wow. Too many chapters, too much information.

Many things from these eleven chapters surprised me. First off, this quote was really unexpected to me the moment I read it, but after reading more and more of the Bible I realized it's not that uncommon at all. "Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah (Gen. 25)." I was convinced that the Bible obligated people to be married only one time, so why would they put this example on it?

For me, it is funny how culture has changed, and I really enjoy analyzing the many things that were normal then but now are just completely insane. Anyways, some other things have stayed the same. This blessing given by someone in Genesis might have as well been given today: "For he had possession of flocks, and possessions of herds, and great store of servants: and the Philistines envied him. (Gen. 26)"

Something else that is really alike is that even since so long ago, women have been expected to be the "woman of the house." They were the ones who would make food and do whatever their husbands wanted them to. "...and his mother made savoury meat, such as his father loved. (Gen. 27)" That can still be seen these days all the time.

Chapter 28 was a different story. I could barely understand any of it, and it had these weird stories that I had never even heard about before. I don't see much of a point in them.

Instead, in chapter 29 there was a story that I really liked. It was a lot better than many of the past stories. I found it interesting, easy to understand, and a very appealing story. It talks about the perseverance he had to be able to get his wife during seven years. I wonder if many of the names we see today were invented by the Bible, like Jacob and Rachel. It is cool to know they might have been sacred a long time ago.

Chapter 30 was the perfect example of people obeying God's order of "being fruitful and multiplying." "And Leah conceived again, and bare Jacob the sixth son. (Gen. 30)" It is weird for me know that they had so many kids, and which so many different partners also. It was as if happiness depended on the number of kids you had. Until now, I think Jacob is very witty, and I like him.

In chapter 31 was the first time I saw the Bible being in first person. I'm not sure if I just missed a part, but it was very weird to see it in Jacob's perspective. "And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob: And I said, Here am I. (Gen. 31)". It is nice how these stories about pacts and stealing go so far back. I liked this story a lot also.

I still don't get why people change each other's names. God doing it I understand a little, but this time it was just another human. Who does he think he is to go around ordering people to change their names? And it wasn't even a subtle change, but it was from Jacob all the way to Israel. "And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed (Gen. 32)." I don't think a change in name is very important, because if a person is a prince he should be one by whom he is inside, not what other people call him.

As I previously mentioned, many things in daily life have stayed the same, but some things changed. One very noticeable example is how men treat each other. In those times, it was something like this: "And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept (Gen. 33)." It seems to be out of respect, but I can also see a little fear in Jacob towards his brother Esau. Nowadays, if two men are seen kissing or hugging or even weeping, they are basically considered gay.

Changing the topic, chapter 34 was just another love story. It was just like modern ones, just that instead of the impediment keeping the couple apart being social differences or species or something like that, it is because one family was not circumcised. It is incredible what love can do, and I liked this story a lot just because it was about love.

Before I leave, I was just wondering if all names in Genesis of people and places mean something in Latin or another language, because at least in English they make no sense at all. And one last thing, I am so confused by Jacob/Israel! They use both names, and call him two different names in only one sentence! Are they like different people or something now? Weird.

So, I hope you liked my post, and I will be back soon with a new text; the Book of Samuel!