Teachings of the Very Old

We are back to very, very boring teachings in a language I cannot understand. Although Luke writes in a fun and more modern way, he happens to cite Jesus a lot and it is pretty unexciting. Since Luke tells about Jesus' life as a teacher, we are shown many of his parables which might be relevant if one actually wanted to interpret it. These messages of the Lord are basically what the next few chapters are all about.

In one of his many teaching sprees Jesus says:

'Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: 9 But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God. 10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.' (Luke 12:8-10)

This troubles me because, as you can see, it is totally contradictory. First Jesus says that if you speak against him you will be denied by the Lord, and then he says that if you speak against him it will all be forgiven. Say what?! However, I begin to notice a change of focus in Jesus' teachings. He now always talks about the importance and the holiness of the Lord God, and that he is His son. I'm not sure what age he is right now, but this sudden interest in the Father maybe has something to do with his moving to heaven is the soon future.

Jesus' mission leads him back to Jerusalem, where he is warned to leave because Herod, the ruler, will kill him, 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee' (Luke 13:34) I find this incredible, that even that far back, when the world was supposed to follow God, someone would be thrown out, threatened, and even killed just because they have their own beliefs. Especially when they are banished from their own cities, like in Jesus' case.

It seems that all that touring has paid off, because Jesus is one popular guy. So popular in fact, that he has to be very picky about his disciples, 'If any mancome 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) I understand that a task like Jesus' and that religion is no small matter, but I simply don't understand this condition that Jesus has set for his followers. What I get from what he said is: if you don't hate your family, you may not be y disciple. First of all, hate is a very strong word, and I don't see how this fits into God's message of loving everybody. Furthermore, how will you hating or not hating your family affect Jesus? There are too many things happening in our world every second, yet we are never affected by them. And if Jesus keeps on being so strict and bossy, he is soon going to be found out of people left to boss.

Maybe this is what happened to the Catholic Church. They used to be a tyrant power that controlled every aspect of their followers' lives, and those that didn't follow it, as we saw in the Crusades, paid the price. Nowadays the Church has been forced to lower its standards and increase its flexibility as a response to being countered by technology, government, society, and high school.

All Give, No Take

In the Gospel of Luke we mostly hear about Jesus' adulthood, and when he was teaching and spreading his beliefs to the people. We also see that some people don't like him or believe him or agree with how he does things. I find it very selfish that the people only come to him so he can heal then them of any of their wrongs, from a 'withered hand' to a bad spirit, and yet after he does everything that is asked of him they still plot what evil they shall do unto him.

However, Jesus puts up with this and spreads his philosophy of 'as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.' (Luke 6:31) this aphorisms also appears in the Tao Te Ching, and it is a very common belief which some people call the Golden Rule. In the Bible it is used to describe the kind of life you should lead here on Earth: 'unto him that smiteth thee on the onecheek offer also the other' (Luke 6:29) Jesus says that we should let ourselves be beaten and bullied and stolen from and abused, all the while treating the other party kindly and basically thank them for doing these things to us. I have this before, but only now does it seem to me very unreasonable. If we live like this it would be as if our lives wouldn't be worth anything and that we don't really deserve to have a good life because then in heaven we will be repaid. I don't agree with this.

Wherever he goes Jesus teaches and preaches, but most of all, we see that he cures people. Perfect strangers, even sinners, just go up to him and he cures them for no apparent reason. If you think about it, it is quite strange- we never heard when the Lord gave – Jesus these awesome powers or when he told him to use it with no restrictions. I would like to think that finally someone in the Bible chose to be independent and think for themselves, but this is too much of a miracle for it not to be a work of God. Or at least that is what the bible has lead me to think.

The most amazing miracle yet is when Jesus sees the only son of a widow dead and he decides to cure him 'And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak.' (Luke 7:15) I not only find this totally unexplainable, bringing someone back from the dead, but this is also something I had never heard of before. He was brought back from the dead just like Jesus was after his death. Everybody seems to paint Jesus in such a unique way, the high point of his life being that he was brought back from the dead after three days. I really don't see what the big deal is, seeing as it has apparently happened before, or what makes his case more important than this one. Why don't we hear about the holiness of this one man to whom what happened wasn't that different from what happened to Jesus? Maybe it's because this guy didn't spend three days dead, or maybe it's because he isn't 'the Son of God'- such an honor!

I also see that Jesus doesn't mind so much when people don't like him or believe him but he adores when they do. For example, when a sick man says he isn't worthy enough to come into his house but that only his words would be enough to heal him (I'll finally know what I'm saying in mass- I guess reading the Bible does have its perks!), or when a lady comes in the middle of his dinner and starts rubbing and kissing and crying all over his feet for forgiveness. I personally would slap whoever tried to kiss my feet, but Jesus praises them and says 'Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.' (Luke 7:50)

Throughout his life, Jesus is done many wrongs by many people, but he does not get revenge from any one of them. Even when his loyal disciples offer him to get back at those who have insulted him he declines and tells them that they are misguided, 'For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.' (Luke 9:56) His philosophy of 'turn the other cheek' is clearly against any revenge, but I think his disciples don't find it that easy to take on. We have seen many times when God hasn't liked how man turned out so he decides to just kill everybody on earth for a fresh start, and I wonder how someone who is apparently so good and pure is related of someone as revengeful as God has been shown to be.

Back to the Bible, According to Luke!

In spite of how annoyed I was at the Tao Te Ching, it is better than reading the Bible. Yes, we are once again reading the King James Bible. Oh, have mercy! Speaking of mercy…

One of the things I hated the most about the Old Testament was how God was portrayed, that mean, selfish, angry, jealous, and vengeful fellow that was mentioned. I figured that since this is the New Testament this is not going to be a problem anymore, right? Wrong! He is still up in His pedestal for being the Almighty, although it is a little subdued. One of the things that showed me this is this part from the text: 'And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.' (Gospel According to St. Luke 1:50)

Luke is kind of narrating the story of Jesus, but I was very surprised at how little importance- none, actually- they gave to his birth. You always hear the story of the night Jesus was born, Christmas told very intricately, as though everyone knew the most minimal detail by heart. Well, they don't know. I just realized that I actually like the fact that he didn't dwell on his birth, it is actually not that important for the story. It does say in this part: '(As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)' (Gospel According to St. Luke 2:23) This I find strange, because it never happened before yet it was a holy law when it did happen, and I am now thinking about the physical possibility of that. (Plus, there is a winking smiley face in the quote! He he)

In the next chapter we encounter a genealogy of Jesus' family. I know what you're thinking, No! Not that again! I thought so too but Luke was smart and put a twist to it, after naming about a hundred old, dead men (no offense), he ends the chapter with 'which was the son of God.' (Gospel According to St. Luke 3:38) That was awesome! I was expecting a boring narration of Jesus' family but instead it showed a direct- not so direct but let's ignore that fact- link from God to Jesus. He proved that Jesus is, in fact, God's son.

I find it somehow sad how Jesus and all the characters in the Bible seem to move about from place to place, from family to family, from woman to woman. They have no place 'they can call home'. It sounds cliché but if you think about it it's true. This leads me to feel sad, or rather think that humans as a whole are disappointing. Jesus is traveling through cities to preach his beliefs and nobody listens to him at first. They only start to pay attention when he performs miracles and cures and takes evil spirits out of people right in front of them. It's like that saying: I won't believe it until I see it. It is like we have no faith in anything that we can't prove, and that is very depressing.

In chapter four we have a special guest, the devil. I know, what the hell (pardon the pun) is he doing in the middle of the Bible- again? He's apparently just dropping in for a chat with Jesus. It's amazing how these people just sit down and try to teach their sworn enemy the ways of the Lord without even batting an eyelash! They could both destroy each other right then and there and they aren't even worried.

So the devil tries to lure Jesus to the bad side but Jesus, very unconvincingly or passionlessly might I add, answers: 'It is written' that I should not, 'It is written' that you should not tempt the Lord like that, 'It is written' that you should not only eat bread. What I get from this is that if it wasn't written then he, the Son of God, might actually considering following the devil.

Towards the end of chapter five Jesus is asked why he socializes with the sick, the poor, and the sinners. I find that totally classist, as if they are saying that just because someone is less fortunate, nobody different than them can be with them. But Jesus answers, 'I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.' (Gospel According to St. Luke 5:32) This statement is totally modest and we can see that Jesus really cares about everyone, which is for once the image I actually had of him.

The Inactive End, Finally

The last forty pieces of the Tao Te Ching really could not be more repetitive. They continue with the message of non-action mentioned before, and it's basically all they say. They describe this idea in a way that sounds negative, it sounds as though they are telling to sit down in a couch and do nothing for the rest of your lives. Literally.

The Tao and its concept are just like the universe and the sun: it's always there and majestic, not doing anything but at the same time doing it all.

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/index.html

Here are some quotes that caught my attention:

'In the pursuit of Tao, every day something is dropped. Less and less is done until non-action is achieved.' (FORTY-EIGHT) 'I take no action and people are reformed. I enjoy peace and people become honest. I do nothing and people become rich. I have no desires and people return to the good and simple life.' (FIFTY-SEVEN) These two passages are examples of what I said before, the idea of us doing absolutely nothing and getting everything we want. I don't agree with this idea because it makes life seem as if we needed to put no effort into it or anything we do, and it is not like that. I do agree with the go-with-the-flow side of it though. These are sadly just two of many (too many) examples of this concept in the book.

'Approach the universe with Tao, and evil will have no power… the sage himself will also be protected. They do not hurt each other, and the Virtue in each one refreshes both.' (SIXTY) This part caught my attention, mainly because they are comparing an important and wise follower of Tao with evil. They are basically saying that evil lives by the Virtue and that it is equal to the Tao. I find that completely incomprehensible, especially after everything it says about Tao being the master of everything and above 'all the ten thousand things'.

'There is no greater catastrophe that underestimating the enemy.' (SIXTY-NINE) This is completely true, as well as what they say: 'never underestimate a girl'. I really like this aphorism, even though it is stuck in the middle of nothing related to it. The book is organized without any order, which makes very confusing for me.

'The Tao of heaven is to take from those who have too much and give to those who do not have enough. Man's way is different. He takes from those who do not have enough to give to those who already have too much.' (SEVENTY-SEVEN) This sadly is true, it's a Robin Hood kind of aphorism. Well, it's actually the exact opposite but you get what I mean. It makes me wonder exactly what Tao is. It is always spoken about as 'the Tao' or 'the way of Tao', but we never know what it is. It might be a religion, a culture, a way of life, or just random poems brought together, but I guess we'll never know.

'Why does everyone like the Tao so much at first? Isn't it because you find what you seek and are forgiven when you sin?' (SIXTY-TWO) I was very surprised to find this set of questions in the middle of my reading, because it is exactly what happened to me. When we started reading the Tao Te Ching I was very excited because it was so simple, so easy to relate to. I guess in a way I did find what I was looking for, some kind of answer for a problem I could understand. The sinning part has nothing to do with me though. Towards the end I noticed that all the writings were focused on the same and topic that they all wanted to convey only that one message. It evidently became much more complex and it took more effort to understand what it meant to say. This is something I didn't like so much. Why can't anybody just say things as they are? Why do we have to use symbols and ideas and confusing words to say something that could be very simple? But the Tao seemed not to care about that, it gave off an attitude of read me if you want, if you don't I don't care. It just kept on going and spreading its message, oblivious to everything else, and that is something I really admired (although in my case, it was kind of obligatory to read it!)

Yin-Yang, Yin-Yang, Yin-Yang

Today's Tao Te Ching readings were very much like all the ones before. That is one thing I don't like about this book, it is very repetitive. Anyways, it talked about to live by the Tao, since that is the only reasonable way and the way of nature. We have to learn to live… humbly. It really makes a lot of sense, if you don't take credit or arrogance from any achievements you do then the world would be a better place. The Tao isn't exactly telling us not to do anything, it is telling us to achieve stuff, because it is the way of nature of course, but to move on.

Some aphorism that caught my attention:

'Achieve results, but never glory in them. Achieve results, but never boast. Achieve results, but never be proud. Achieve results, because this is the natural way. Achieve results, but not through violence.' (THIRTY) (Excuse me, it was 'the natural way', not the way of nature.) This is exactly what I was explaining. We should do all kinds of things but move right past them without letting them raise our ego or our self-image one little bit. I agree with the concept but I think that this might be a little extreme.

'Tao abides in non-action.' (THIRTY-SEVEN) We encounter the term 'non-action' again. We saw it in the Bhagavad-Gita, I think or way before now so it is kind of strange how such different texts have the same base. We came to the conclusion that everything is an action, even non-action. I think that the Tao Te Ching adapts it here to mean that even though we are acting, we are acting through non acting- it's the opposites again. Even through the simplest act we affect a much bigger picture, we just maybe don't realize it.

'The ten thousand things carry yin and embrace yang. They achieve harmony by combining these forces.' (FORTY-TWO) Ha, I was right! This thing is all about yin and yang! Read it and cry suckers!

Sorry, I just saw it and had to boast. I am going against the ways of Tao, oh dear me!

My Literary Soul-Mate

Today I continued reading the oh-so-amazing Tao Te Ching. Today, however it wasn't as simple and great. Parts THIRTEEN through TWENTY-EIGHT all talk basically about being good. They explain that following the Tao is eternal and the only way to become good, it talks again about doing one things as well as its opposite- the same yin-yang thing but only now it is a kind of give-and-take thing. A great example of the type of relationship talked about in the text is this aphorism, which was included in various parts of the text, 'He who does not trust enough will not be trusted.' He will only be trusted by others if he trusts them, the others give then he takes. By not doing anything then everything will work out and we won't be disappointed.

This is still my favorite literary piece we have read so far, but in today's reading the message wasn't as clear as the last time. This is probably because the texts covered lots of different topics, each of them very complex. Here are some aphorisms I liked:

'Give up ingenuity, renounce profit, and bandits and thieves will disappear.' (NINETEEN) I really like this part and the message it conveys. It is something that I've always believed in: as long as there is something there will be something bad that goes along with it. It's not like I'm a pessimist, to me it is just logical to think that if there is one piece of bread and two people want it, they are going to fight for it. The Tao is telling us to do the exact opposite, it is telling us to renounce what we have and do nothing. This is a bit depressing but it also makes sense when you think about it.

'Must I fear what others fear? What nonsense!' (TWENTY) The message= be yourself! This is also I strongly believe in, being who you truly are and not who others think you are or want you to be. Living your whole life under a cover just to try and please other is exactly as the text says, nonsense! Are you yourself not important enough to please too?

'The greatest Virtue is to follow Tao and Tao alone.' (TWENTY-ONE) It is self-explanatory. That is mainly what I like about this aphorism, how simple it is. I also really admire the confidence it emits. I just hate complications, all the drama that people add in just to make life more 'interesting'. I don't see it like that, I just see it as another problem blown up to a ridiculous size, without that being necessary. What I admire are confident and simple people, just as this aphorism seems.

 

It looks like this book and I are more alike than I thought. We would make a good couple! (Just joking)

Tao Te-Te Ching, I’m Lovin’ It

The Tao Te Ching is a compilation of poems about life, from ancient china I think. My point is, that it is the closest thing to today's literature as we have come to read in class. I have only read the first 12 parts, and I am already automatically relating to these poems and the message I take from them. These 12 poems talked mostly about how each thing is balanced out by its opposite, how whatever we do we should do it well, but we should also do it balanced. These are some aphorisms that really caught my attention from the texts:

'Under heaven all can see beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness. All can know good as good only because there is evil.' 'Work is done then forgotten. Therefore it lasts forever.' (TWO) these two passages are explaining what I said about everything and its opposite. They are representing a kind of yin-yang relationship, where each thing can be defined only because we know its opposed.

'Not seeing desirable things prevents confusion of the heart.' 'If nothing is done, then all will be well.' (THREE) Here we see the parallels again, but in a different situation. This is basically telling us that by not knowing that there is something better, then we will always be happy with what we have. If we don't see anything more than what we have, we won't want anything more, if we do know that there is more we will never be content with what we have even if it is enough for us. It is a perfect definition of human greediness which I think is pathetic, if we live controlled by greediness then life will just seem like any other competition and we will eventually get too tired to continue the race.

'More words count less.' (FIVE) This aphorism could also compliment the last ones I mentioned. It means that the more there is, the less it matters, the less value everything has. The same goes to greediness, the more we want the less we want what we do have.

'Heaven and earth last forever. Why do heaven and earth last forever? They are unborn, so ever living.'(SEVEN) What I understood by this passage is that everything will end. Everything that has a life, a soul, that is. Heaven and earth, being as majestic as they are, are lifeless and that is basically what makes them so majestic. They will live forever because they are so different to humans, so much more perfect.

'the sage is guided by what he feels and not by what he sees.' Senses make your body numb, just as logic makes your brain smart but your head dumb. Don't listen to what you can prove, follow your heart and your imagination to live a full life.

 

I think I'm really going to like this book.

O Little Ones!

Book fifteen tells a lot of separate stories with separate meanings, it is the only way to look at it that makes sense. Most of these stories ii liked very much, they are very true and can totally be adapted for life. For example, Confucius explains that even gentlemen have problems, but they don't let their problems overwhelm them. This inspires me to be a gentlemen, to at least pick up that habit of controlling my own life and not letting exterior things control me. It also says something about judging a person based on what you, not others, think- regardless if it is good or bad. I think this distinction is very important to make, because we hear everywhere the 'don't judge a book by its cover'. We always assume that we are judging it based on wrongness, but no one ever points out that it's exactly the same with judging it as good from the outside. It doesn't work.

In Book seventeen we hear more still about the Odes. We have no idea what they are yet they keep coming up again and again the text, like here where The Master asks, 'Little Ones, why do none of you learn the Odes?' (17:9) (I thoroughly enjoy the use of 'Little Ones') He talks about how The Odes are great because they teach you how to act correctly and they educate you about the trees and birds- here we go again with the culture. This man has got a fascination! - But aren't told what the Odes are.

In another part he complains about having to speak so much, after all, all he ever does is talk, and when asked how he could direct his 'Little Ones' without speaking he answers: 'What does Heaven ever say? Yet the four seasons are put in motion by it and the myriad creatures receive their life from it. What does Heaven ever say?' I say that this is a great comeback. It makes me think about how this all really works: everything works perfectly in sync yet there is nothing guiding it. Earth truly is a miracle. Plus, that was a big burn to the person who asked, Burn!

In Book eighteen Confucius confronts himself with a question: Why does he spend his time teaching all of this to the bad men of today? And he says, 'If the Way were realized in the world, then I would not need to change anything.' (18:6) this makes me kind of depressed because it means that we are so bad that we need to be saved, but hundreds of years later we are even worse than we were before.

Dream of Little Sheep

Book seven of the Analects summarizes the whole concept of Confucianism in one sentence: 'Set your heart upon the Way, rely upon Virtue, lean upon Goodness, and explore widely in your cultivation of the arts.' (7:6) These are the main points I've understood, but I only wish it was this simple. Book seven also has some parts different from all the rest, they describe what the Master does- or what he doesn't do- instead of quoting him. He is always doing one thing while acting completely oppositely, like balancing out the forces, 'composed and yet fully at ease.' (7:4)

In Book eight the Master says: 'The common people can be made to follow it, but they cannot be made to understand it.' (8:9) This makes me feel like we are a stupid flock of sheep. This statement is sadly true, people, society, as a whole is stupid. We all follow the same fashions, all buy the same things, all act the same way. And why? Well, nobody knows. We just do it because everyone else does it. Not even do we understand it.

The Master seems to have a strong passion for culture and for people who are cultured. We see this when he is praising Yao and one of the things he exalts is 'glorious [he is] in cultural splendor!'

Book eleven also brings up the topic of the disciples' ambitions. They each plan for something of importance, except Zengxi who wishes with 'a company of five or six young men and six or seven boys to go bathe in the Yi River and enjoy the breeze upon the Rain Dance Altar, and then return singing to the Master's house.' (11:26) Confucius was completely with this ambition, because he says that the others are too big. It is like that saying that goes: taking one little step at a time. Dream big but make those dreams reachable, or else it will only cause unhappiness.

Confucius Confuses Me!

The Analects, the kind of Holy Book for Confucius, is arranged in Books. I can't see how the contents of each Book are related to each other, and this leads to a bunch of life lessons taught by 'The Master' bundled up in an unorganized matter. It is confusing but at the same time it somehow makes sense.

Book four says something I really like: 'Do not be concerned that no one has heard of you, but rather strive to become a person worthy of being known.' (4:14) I think this is a great aphorism because it is basically saying stop waiting around for others to do something, do it yourself! I am so freaking tired of having everybody complain about other people, when in reality the problems they have are their problems and it is nobody else's job to solve them and make them happy. It's kind of a like do-it-yourself kind of theory.

This Book starts by taking of Goodness, is followed by The Way, then moves on to being your own person, and finally ends with how you should treat your parents. See what I mean? It's kind of like a disorderly order, very much like my room!

In Book five Confucius (who I assume is 'The Master') talks mostly about the Way a gentleman has to go through to be Good, however, he teaches this by giving examples of what not to do. He never says what makes a man Good, instead he asks: 'what makes you think he deserves to be called good?' (5:19)

Something that grabbed my attention in this Book is when Confucius asks his students what their aspirations are. One of them is 'to be able to share my carts and horses, clothing and fur with my fellow students and friends, without feeling regret.' The other is 'to avoid being boastful about my own abilities or exaggerating my accomplishments.' (5:26) What surprises me is that out of everything they could have wished for they ask for generosity and modesty. Even the Master asks for something a little more self-centered.

I didn't really understand Book six. It starts by praising Yan Hui for his dedication and goes on to describe the Good ways and how virtue and Goodness is maintained. I did notice however that the Master talked to a lot of different people, probably students. This gave me the idea that these rules and these concepts can be applied to anyone who seeks them and wants them enough, probably the effect they wanted.

Random Aphorisms, or Psalms

Psalm 23 is a Psalm of David, and it describes his life and his relationship with God perfectly. The main thing which does that is when it says: 'I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.' This might be talking about the covenants that God has, mainly about the one he has with David, because no matter what happened, God always had his back, always defended his and saved him from other petty humans who weren't as good. 'The LORD is my shepherd;' 'though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me'. These two passages show how devoted David is, was, to God. It shows the safety that all the covenant men feel, from the jealousy of other men and their anger which I have previously mentioned.

Psalm 42 is all different metaphors, like brooks and tears and swords, which ask the same question: 'Where is thy God?' I found this Psalm written in a very different manner than the rest of the Bible, it seems more metaphorical, poetic, romantic but at the same time, desperate. We don't know who is talking, who is searching for his lost soul in God, so that makes it even deeper, I think.

Psalm 51 is rather confusing. In the beginning it says: 'To the chief Musician' from David. We can assume it is David who wrote it, but we can't assume who he is speaking to. He seems to be ordering the musician to clean him-if you take it literally- but he is at the same time asking God to 'Create in [him] a clean heart, O God'. David seems to be recognizing his sins before he was overthrown by his own son, and he is asking for forgiveness from them. I think this shows David has grown a lot, after all, apologizing and asking for forgiveness is never easy- I should imagine doing that to God must be even harder.

Psalm 137 talks about someone asking for forgiveness. I assume it is the children of Edom: 'Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom'. I think they are being rather selfish, saying that they shall be remembered and that they shall always be happy. This is another very conditional form of faith, I do something for you and you give me something back. I think so many cases of this might reflect on the leader, no offense.

I don't know if these Psalms are the most important, or relevant, or if they are in fact random, but I did notice something that they all have in common. They all talk about God in a way that seems unreachable, they all proclaim God as a superior but yet someone who takes care of them. This is the God I'm actually used to, and because of this and the much simpler language that is used, I like this part of the Bible better than the rest. I can easily relate to it- metaphorically speaking.

David’s Faces

The impression I get of the people in the Bible, from Samuel and all the other Books, is that they have no sense of self. They just follow what their leader says, without doubting or giving their opinion on it, whether it means to give up your wife, to give yourself up, or to go on a task that will surely end up bringing your death. What spurred this train of thought is when Michal, David's I think ex-wife, Saul's daughter, and now Phaltiel the son of Laish's wife, is summoned for Abner. Her husband of the time goes after her, weeping, but when he gets there Abner says to him: 'Go, return.' 'And he [stupidly] returned.'

After an episode where two of David's men killed one of Saul's sons, as a kind of revenge on Saul for being David's enemy, we see how good David really is, how holy he acts. I don't know why he does this, maybe to be good in the eyes of the Lord, but when he hears about what happens he reprimands the two men and, going too far, sends them to be killed. I think his acts balance out, because he says he has no respect for death yet he is the one that causes two of them.

One thing that caught my eye was this: 'David was thirty years old when he began to reign' This surprises me because all throughout the Book of Genesis we saw that the people lived up to nine hundred years, just started their lives around the one hundreds', but here is David at a mere thirty years and at the top of his life.

I can now doubt what I said about David being good and holy, because David himself says something about 'the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind, that are hated of David's soul,' and I am very confused because in everything that I previously knew about God, he was supposed to have even more love and compassion for the lame and the blind, he cures them and keeps them safe. However, David represents just the opposite of that, banishing them from his city- which he took from them.

In the part where David and all the cities go out and celebrate for the ark of the Lord, I see God reinforcing his power and putting everybody in their place through fear. He kills Uzzah just because he touched the ark, and makes an example of him, as if saying, 'I am The Man, nobody deserves anything except me, and you lousy humans exist only to worship and respect me.' This kind of attitude from God, the self-centered, pompous, arrogance is something very recurrent throughout the Bible, especially in this Book. It is unlike any image I've ever seen of God, as the traditional image we are given is that he is caring and loving and only cares about our wellbeing. I am beginning to really have a different perspective on this religion, and feeling a little tricked into a false image of God. From what I have read of the Old Testament I get the feeling that God is a morally ambiguous character.

'And it was so, that when they that bare the ark of the LORD had gone six paces, he sacrificed oxen and fatlings.' This is when David brings the Lord's ark into his house from Obed-edom the Gittite's house just because the ark's keeper is blessed by the Lord. We see how David only worships God because he fears Him, how he only prays and sacrifices in His honor when it will bring something good for him. I think David is a total suck-up, only doing good things when God tells him to and seeking His approval and advice in anything he does.

I noticed that even after the whole struggle with Saul David is willing to forgive, He asks: 'Is there yet any that is left of the house of Saul, that I may shew him kindness for Jonathan's sake?' He does good for Jonathan's son just for being Jonathan' son. He does that again with another kingdom, he says: 'I will shew kindness unto Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father shewed kindness unto me.' And he sends servants to give his blessings. However, that is what I don't like, that he sends servants to do everything for him, as if he couldn't be deigned to go himself. This is also probably why his actions are taken the wrong way by 'the children of Ammon' and reciprocated that way.

Later on, after battling with half of the continent and conquering and killing it all (much like a tyrant, I must point out) we see David commit one of the basic sins: adultery. He sees a beautiful and even after being told she is married he goes and lays with her. Then he goes further on to arranging this man's death, by telling Joab, 'Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten, and die.' I am opposed to this in two ways. First of all, and most importantly, David is supposed to be God's favorite, that person who always does what is right and who lives by God's rules forever. Then not only does he commit adultery, but he even participates in an evil-fated murder. I'm not sure if the Ten Commandments had been written yet, but he must have had some kind of idea that it is wrong, although all his war's fought and men killed proves otherwise. Secondly, we see again another case of how women aren't respected. They have no say- or don't enforce it- in what happens with them.

David was punished for these sins, which is surprising, by having his child die. He then stops praying to and worshiping God, a great example of his conditional faith. Still after all this God still has his back and helps him.

We presence a kind of change in David after this: he becomes a victim, he becomes better and more forgiving, as we can see when he forgives his son and lets him back into the city: 'And the king said unto Joab, Behold now, I have done this thing: go therefore, bring the young man Absalom again.' (Samuel 14:21) I t was done in good spirit, even if it all turns out wrong for him.

We see hismtrue love of his sons in the end when Absalom is killed and David weeps and says, 'O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! would God I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!'

‘Inherit the Wind’- My Verdict

In the movie Inherit the Wind the main dilemma is the People vs. Bertram T. Cates. Cates is a school teacher who has the horrible idea to bring forth the theory of, can you imagine?!, evolution. He is found guilty, but because 'there is no precedent to this case' he is not sentenced to any time in prison. I personally am totally sided with Cates. Ignoring what the obvious answer to this question today would be, given that evolution has been scientifically proven, I base myself whole on freedom. Freedom to think what you like to think and freedom to say what you like to say.

In this case, Cates was in no way harming anyone when he introduced his ideas and his beliefs, yet he was charged for speaking against the Lord. Yes, maybe the idea of evolution in its base goes against the story of God creating the earth with His own two hands in seven days but the Bible itself says: 'the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil' (Genesis 3:22) This is talking about after Adam and Eve have eaten of the Tree of Knowledge and God himself says that after eating its fruit they have been able to know bad from good, they have gained new knowledge, and they have become gods like Him. And yes, Adam and Eve were punished for their act, but only because the Lord was jealous, it was unthinkable for him to have equals, because that is what knowledge does, it makes us gods. How can it be bad?

Still, if what Cates said about evolution offended God in any way, then let Him take His revenge. In the same situation of Adam and Eve we see God himself take care of those who disrespected Him. This is a passage taken from the Book of Genesis:

    'And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.'

                    (Genesis 3:15)

Who are we to intervene between God and his actions? Who are we to punish and do unto, in this case, Cates, without God having told us to?

New knowledge and discoveries have always been encouraged, even in these early times, so this shouldn't be any different even if it contradicts God. Who are we to fight the Lord's battle?

Taking a Break

While reading the Bible I have realized that they use almost the same language, or slang, as in A Clockwork Orange. Take into consideration that this book is almost unreadable (but it is still a very good book!), therefore my difficulty to understand the KJB. Just saying.

David Grows Up

In the story of David and Goliath one of the first things that stand out to me is the unquestionable faith everyone seems to have in God. David believes that he has God's will by his side so he doesn't even doubt in going of to battle with a giant, bulky, armed, warrior who can literally snap him in two. He tells Goliath, the Philistine giant, 'I come to thee in the name of the LORD' and we can see that he is willing to give up his life just to prove his faith in God. On the other hand, Saul the king of Israel doesn't give a second thought to sending 'but a youth' to fight with a full well grown warrior in a battle that could very easily end up in the conquering and capturing of his whole kingdom and all of the Israeli people. No, he just sends David off with the words 'Go, and the LORD be with thee.' Some faithful servants these are, if I was God I wouldn't be so keen in scaring them away with all those test in their faith, although they would probably pass them all.

Another thing is that even though both Saul and David share their undying passion for the Lord, and even though David saved Israel and is completely loyal to Saul, Saul hates that little man. He is so jealous that everybody says that David has killed more men than he has, that they say he is more courageous or whatever it is they say, that he actually tries to kill David in many occasions. Saul is scared of David because he sees 'that the LORD was with David', here we see another example of the covenants God has with certain men, and how others are afraid and intimidated by these men. In this case, Saul is so afraid and jealous that when he isn't successful in killing David, he sends all his servants and his son to kill David at any cost. Still, no one is able to kill him.

This leads to another thing that surprises me: how everyone seems so calm and going-with-the-flow. First of all, David is completely respectful and understanding with Saul- because he is his father in law or because he is king or because he is older than him, I don't know- even though he knows that it is Saul who has many times attempted to end his life when David hasn't done anything to him. He even asks Jonathan if he deserves what Saul is trying to do, 'What have I done? what is mine iniquity?' In real life this wouldn't happen, Saul would already have been… taken care of. Then we have Saul's own family, his son Jonathan, who is David's BFF, and his daughter Michal, who is David's wife. They know what he is trying to do to David and even though they save and help David many times, they can still sit down at the table with him and talk normally, even while plotting against him with David *cough* Jonathan *cough*. They both have such close relationships with David, but as they say (or maybe they don't) in the end, family is all that matters.

One thing that stood out to me was the part where Michal tells David: 'If thou save not thy life to night, to morrow thou shalt be slain.' This is exactly like what happened to Simon Bolivar. One night he was at home with his lover, Manuelita Beltran, she heard footsteps and warned him that they were coming to kill him. He fled and was saved. It is very strange that two situations so alike would happen after so many years, and when the two had nothing to do with each other. It also goes to prove that 'after every great man, there is a greater still woman'. I like this part.

Later on happens something that was bound to happen, it is the time to test the people's faith: the king vs. God. Of course, since this is the Bible, the Book of God, God wins. This takes place when Saul tells his men to kill every prophet and every priest in the city and none of his men obey him, except Doeg the Edomite. All the godsend men are killed in act which I think would seriously make Saul loose points with God, leaving him with very little points after this and his pursuit of David. I say pursuit but I should really say high speed chase, that's how they make it sound. Plus, I think it is so unrealistic that when Saul has his sworn enemy cornered in front of him, he is just going to put it off for later and go fight a battle taking place miles away (or so I imagine).

After that battle passes, Saul returns to find David, but David finds him first and just cuts off his skirt- I have no idea why- , he is not able to kill him. Then Saul says 'For if a man find his enemy, will he let him go well away?' He says this to point out how good David is for not killing him, and he also says that he is bad. However, that is exactly what Saul did. Maybe he didn't do it in as good spirit as David, but he should at least give himself a little credit.

I totally didn't expect it. I didn't think that David would be one to take what he wanted no matter what, like he did with Nabal and his wife. But then again, here in the Bible it seems everybody knows everybody else, that men have no respect for women and that women don't make themselves be respected. They just follow the few chosen ones around like everybody else does. I can't seem to get the analogy of a high school off my mind, in this way they are so alike. And to my recollection, everybody always says: High School sucks.

'And David smote them from the twilight even unto the evening of the next day: and there escaped not a man of them, save four hundred young men' I'll say, only four hundred?!

In the end Saul finally got what was coming to him, he died in battle with the Philistines, just how it all began. The interesting part is that even though he did various evil things in his life, everybody loved him so much that they were willing to give up their lives just because their leader had died too, I guess God can't win 'em all!

Karma

Finally God steps up to His actions and comes down to talk to Job about what is happening, although He does not explain it. I find it a little weird and too casual how just anybody, like Satan, can go and talk to God, and how normally people react to being contacted by God. If this had happened today, there would have probably been millions of old ladies in small towns proclaiming it as a miracle.

The first thing God says to Job is: 'Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?' He starts listing all His great achievements to Job, as if to make him regret comparing himself to God or just claiming not to be inferior to Him. However, I just think he's bragging: Who did this, who did that? Did you make this like that? Where were you when this? etc. I get a very strong feeling that here God needs to be constantly reassuring and proving His place above others, this shows a lot of insecurity.

Finally Job dies, 'being old and full of days.' But this doesn't happen until after job's three not-so-great friend are punished for 'not sp[eaking] of [God] the thing that is right', if you find some way of understanding it. It maybe means that none of the three of them really understood God, God's relationship with Job, or God's reasons for Job's punishments. They were all filling Job's head with wrong ideas about God and about how he acted, at one point they even said he was inferior to them, and now they must worship Job. In the end it all really paid off for Job, he proved his faith in God and is then rewarded with all he had before and more. He then dies, 'being old and full of days.'

Intervention!

We come back to the middle of a conversation between Job and his friends, mainly with Zophar the Naamathite. He says: 'prepare thine heart, and stretch out thine hands toward him; If iniquity be in thine hand, put it far away' Job counters back with: 'I am not inferior to you… they that provoke God are secure'. Basically we see that Job no longer trusts God, no longer believes that He is good. As it says before, Job 'feareth God' and so he follows Him- now he only fears Him and thinks that by being God's children life will only be hard because He is constantly testing you, he thinks that the ones who disobey Him are the ones who prosper and are safe from His curses. I think that is very reasonable of him to say, because God not only let Satan destroy all of Job's possessions, He also let Satan kill his family and cover his body in boils. Not even after all that does Job curse him, only when he sits to think about it and realizes the injustice of it all, Why him?

Job also says that any man born from a woman is filthy, for 'who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?' Here we see references to the story of Adam and Eve, partly with the sexist theme again- it says that women are unclean, and also we see the punishment that God gave Eve for eating the forbidden fruit-giving birth. Well, now his friend Eliphaz the Temanite says that yes, he is the same as all the others so he doesn't know more than them. He says that the man who is good to God and reaches out to Him will be blessed, those who don't and who sin and curse Him, like Job, are condemned by their own mouths.

Wow, something very weird happened, I was thinking of how all of Job's friends talk to him and all they tell him to comfort him and share his grief. They just reprimand him and tell him he isn't good enough, they even say that he deserves worse punishments than those God gave him. Then the next line I read says: 'Job answered and said, I have heard many such things: miserable comforters are ye all.' Which is exactly what I was thinking? They are not very good friends to have around when your life is nearly over and you are suffering and in pain, you can see.

Job now just feels kind of deflated, he is let down by his friends scolding him and he is just waiting for death to come. He doesn't really understand what it is happening to him, he was so good and so pure to God, but he doesn't blame Him anymore. However, he does say: 'the innocent shall stir up himself against the hypocrite.' This is probably referring to God as the hypocrite, which He basically is, He is making one of his most loyal servants who has never done anything against Him suffer horribly, just to test his faith. I think that is totally turning His back on Job, especially since this deal all has to do with Satan.

In the end, his friends stop arguing with Job because 'he was righteous in his own eyes', and 'he justified himself rather than God.'

I don't think Job believes in God anymore, or worships or respects Him, it's very possible after everything God has done to him, but I don't think it is a very good idea to be comparing himself to God, as we can see how jealous and angry God can turn.

Forty-Two

The assignment for today was to 'write one reflective blog entry'. We had various doubts as to what we should reflect on, and how reflective we should be, but since we got no responses, I have decided to reflect on my life. I have everything one could ask for to live happy forever, a good house, food for every meal, a loving family (even if we don't realize it all the time), caring friends, a good education, IQ points, etc. But there are very few people who are able to always be happy- you know, without the help of …um… happy pills. So this eloquent introduction gives way to my thoroughly, at least to me, complicated life.

Even though I have all these things that should make me content, I am not entirely happy. I might be joyous at times, but I still always feel this kind of emptiness, a feeling that a part of me isn't there. For my mental sanity and to give me a little hope that everything will not always be like this, I pinpoint this as being the fault of the atmosphere I am now. Our school, the situation with my family- having to go through three different teenage phases at the same time, plus a family crisis on the side-, the fact that I have lost more than half of my closest friends in the past two years. That atmosphere. I have already found a the problem, or a replacement of it until I really find what it is, but I cannot seem to find the solution. Every time I feel overwhelmed or just plain blue I think that I would like to pack everything and go to Australia for a year, Australia being my latest ideal escape place (yes, this does have to do with the hot boys who have the even hotter accents; I may be sad, but I'm still me inside!) I think that if I could go to another place which had nothing to do with here for some time then I would find what I'm looking for. This may have to do with the fact that last year I was living in France in an exchange for the whole year. I know I felt like this there too, mostly in the beginning of the year, but I think I have blocked all the bad memories out, another strategy to keep on waking up every day to face my life. I mostly started seeing how good I had it there when I came back, when I started feeling like this again, a feeling of being of being trapped inside the boundaries of my former life here, when in reality I had changed. I still tried to come back with an open mind to a new kind of life here, but as you can see, it didn't work. Walking away from everything, escaping, probably isn't the answer to this problem, but the idea of it is what keeps me going forward, towards a promise that something better will come along.

Speaking of promises, the other day a girl read my fortune- out of a chocolate sticker kind of thing (a mona from a Chocolatina Jet). Even though I don't believe in that stuff, from fortune tellers to ghosts, she told me something that was scarily accurate. She said that in this moment I was feeling lost, wondering where I was going and if I should change roads. This exactly how I am feeling, like I need an exit to get on a different lane, it's a good thing that someone knows without me having to tell them, because, frankly, I wouldn't be able to explain it. She also said that someone would come along and would make snap out of it, telling me: you are on the right track, you are going somewhere with your life. She told me I was just going through a though time, I like to explain it as a kind of one-eight-of-life crisis, but that a new person would come into my life and end the toughness. One thing I cannot remember is if she said soon, that all this would happen soon. Oh, how I wish she did say soon.

 
 

This probably wasn't at all what my teacher had in mind with this assignment, really it just makes me sound like a suicidal Dr. Phil case, but that's what he gets from not being clear. Here's a piece of the real Daniela Berenguer for whoever wants it (though I really doubt he does!)

 
 

PS: The title of this is forty-two because, anyone who has seen or read A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy will understand this, forty-two is the answer to everything, it is the answer to The Ultimate Question-which is itself unknown. Right now, forty-two is all that I need.

Snapping Point

In the Book of Job Job is a good man, 'a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil', as God praises him to be. He never sinned and was always respectful to God, he frequently made sacrifices and blessed the Lord and all his children. This is why I find it so weird, first of all that God is talking with Satan, and that he lets Himself be manipulated by Satan, and second that God does nothing to stop Job's life from being destroyed by Satan, even does some of the destroying Himself. Job says 'I am full of confusion', he has always acted perfectly towards God, and he is being repaid by having to suffer more than anyone like him should suffer. However, if he had acted differently, disrespected Him, then the consequences would have also been horrible. He does not know what to do and, frankly, neither do I: it seems that God is never satisfied with what we do, He will always be up there observing us and judging us, punishing us when we don't do exactly what He wants- even if we don't know what that is. I think that sucks.

I still don't understand the paper Satan had to do in this part of the story, chapters one through ten, because he says: 'But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.' I understood from this that Satan was going to make Job suffer, as if he was God, so that Job might curse and hate God. However, I think that the one who put all those curses on Job was God, so I don't see why he does it or what relevance Satan has in the story. To me, God can represent evil all by Himself.

One thing that I saw was very common, and very normal to happen in today's world, is that even though Job suffered through so much, and most of it was put unto him by God, he always kept his calm and never even as much as cursed Him. That was until his friends came to visit him and 'they sat down with him upon the ground seven days and seven nights, and none spake a word unto him: for they saw that his grief was very great.' You always have the kind of person who is perfect and does everything right and never says bad words or does something inappropriate, at least on the outside. But these kinds of people are always bound to snap, with people they are very close to or with people who they would least expect it with. This is what happened with Job, once he was around his close friends he let loose and lashed out at God, cursing him and sinning and asking Him why he was doing this to him- why He couldn't just let him die.

Moses, Behind the Scenes

The beginning of the Second Book of Moses, Exodus, is also the beginning of the story of Moses.

One of the first things I noticed was that it said '[I am the] Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob'. This brings forth a very important piece of information for my conspiracy of why the covenants and the same stories and basically everything got passed down exactly the same with each passing generation. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were all the fathers of Catholicism and Jewish religion. They were the base from which everyone else started off, especially in Israel. We can very clearly see the covenants that God has with Israel, as he always calls them 'the children of Israel' and makes a plan to save them from the fate the Egyptians were enforcing on them.

Another thing I noticed is how perfectly common and how morally right they make slavery and adultery seem, even though these are now one of the most punished sins and crimes. In most all of the stories in the KJB they mention their servants, but curiously enough, they never say when it started or if it is wrong or right.

 

Going back to the story, I find no purpose to what the Lord God did, sending such small plagues like flies, frogs, snakes, even locusts instead of taking this salvation seriously and doing something to really convince the Pharaoh to let His people go. Nor do I see any explanation for it other than he was showing off. He was playing the almighty roll, wanting everyone to bow over to His powers, as we see how always speaking to Moses He says: 'ye may know how that I am the Lord.' Or: 'I AM THAT I AM'- indicating his 'superiority'. And at least God knows that every time the Pharaoh says he will back off he is lying, I find kind of pathetic that after almost five times that the same thing has happened, Moses and his brother, Aaron, still trust the Pharaoh.

The paragraph of Exodus 14:10 through 14:12 spoke more to me than mostly anything I've read. I don't know why, but I get a sort of desperation coming through the voices of the people, the same kind of desperation and fear that I find in narratives about the Holocaust, when crowd panic sets in and makes a lot of people who could be able to defend themselves kneel down and face their futures without even trying to fight back. I hate it, how in so many cases such amounts of people were made felt so entirely not human that they didn't even care if they lived or not.

We again see a kind of evil coming from God, not evil, but a wish for people to suffer, even if it they deserve it. That goes totally against the imange I had of God, the one I had gotten from the church. 15:3 'The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.'

Finally, I had never really thought about it, it is simply a popular assumption: Moses is a hero for his people. But nobody ever mentioned Aaron, even though he didn't do much, he was still there. And let's face it, God was the one who did everything, he told Moses what to say, gave him powers, and all Moses did was follow His very precise instructions. Still, 'the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh's servants, and in the sight of the people'.

Like Father, Like Son

From chapters twenty-six on (until chapter thirty-five), we hear about various stories.

First is the story about Isaac and how he was sent to wander and conquer the lands by God, and he lied about his wife being his sister, and was cursed and thrown out, and then was used to reach God by the same ones who had rejected him, and built altars all along his ways, and was blessed with children from God- just like his father, Abraham. Isaac's wife, Rebekah bares twins: Esau and Jacob.

Jacob was cunning and very smart, and so he got Esau to deny his birthrights and he cheated Esau out of Isaac's blessing, by dressing up and passing as him to his dying, blind father. However, this action was totally maneuvered and controlled by Rebekah, who preferred Jacob, and so he must not have to take all of the blame. Then Jacob, fearing Esau's revenge and again being controlled by his mother, left for Laban's lands, Laban being his uncle. There he falls in love with Rachel, Laban's daughter (that would make them cousins, incestuous much?!), and he promises Laban seven years of labor in exchange for his daughter. When the seven years end, Laban sneaks his eldest daughter, Leah, to be with Jacob. That way Jacob has to promise seven more years of labor to get Rachel, who is who he really wants. After twenty years of being cheated and mistreated by Laban, Jacob leaves with his wives and eleven sons to go back to his lands, over where Esau rules now.

They get there and Jacob sends gifts and servants in front of him, as to avoid his brother's anger, but he is greeted only by love and kindness. Then Jacob and his crew continue traveling through all lands, all the while committing the same actions and mistakes as his father. He travels and build altars until Rachel dies, when she is buried just like Sarah was buried once before.

 

I think that throughout this whole journey, we see a very big change in Jacob. At first he is very sly and seems to have no morals, as we can see he betrays his own brother to get what isn't rightfully his, but towards the middle we can see that he turns humble and is willing to work no matter how hard to get what he wants, exchanging almost twenty years of labor with Laban for his true love. However, when he returns home, he starts acting like a total coward, sending all these people and presents in front of him so his brother would forget to get back at him for what he did. Even though it worked, he was forgiven, I think he should have still gotten what he deserved.

 

In the middle of all this story there is a part where out of the blue, Jacob finds himself wrestling with some guy. I think that guy is God. He tells Jacob: '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', which is something that God himself says afterwards. We see another Jewish tradition that comes out of this scene, 'the children of Israel eat not of the sinew which shrank … because he touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh in the sinew that shrank.' The bond seems to just be getting bigger.

Abraham, God, and A Bit of Nobody Else

In chapter seventeen God tells Abraham: 'ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.' This is a very important Jewish tradition, and it shows the relation between Catholicism and Jewish religion in the Old Testament of the Bible. He also tells Abraham that he shall bear a son and he 'shalt call his name Isaac: and [He] will establish [His] covenant with him', this makes me think how, if covenants last through whole generations, God deals with so many of them at a time. It brings back my doubt of what these men have done to get the special treatment, Isaac isn't even born yet and he is already promised a covenant.

In chapter nineteen we hear again about Lot, Abraham's nephew. He protects and shelters two of Gods angels and so he is warned that the city will be destroyed and he and his family leava just in time to be saved. On their way out of their homes, Lot's wife looks back to the city and turns into a pillar of salt. This shows once again the humanity of God, even of His angels: they weren't warmly welcomed into a city so they decide to destroy it and kill everyone in it. It does not send a good message to me, especially the one that we always hear is supposedly sent by God: If someone hits you, turn the other cheek. This story also shows another very human aspect, although this one is shown through a human, it is impatience. When Lot's wife turns back to the city it reminds me of the story of Orpheus and Eurydice in Metamorphosis. There is a line in it, 'Is this story a story of an artist, and the loss that comes from sudden self-consciousness or impatience?' which I think fits here perfectly. For just one moment of doubt, there is a consequence so great that there is no turning back.

The next four chapters talk about Abraham and his son Isaac, who was finally born of Abraham 'in his old age'. It tells about another time when God again defended Abraham after he tells another king that Sarah is but his sister, and God takes revenge on said king. An interesting story, and one that shows us that Abraham is not just a lazy man spoiled by God (there seem to be few moments when we see this), is the story of Abraham and Isaac. God asks Abraham to take his son Isaac to make a sacrifice in a sacred mountain top, and Abraham as a faithful follower does so. When they get there Abraham realizes that the sacrifice will not be of a lamb, but of his only child. Still, as an even more faithful servant, he calmly 'bound[s] Isaac his son, and [lays] him on the altar upon the wood'. When he is ready to stick a knife in him, an 'angel of the Lord' says it's okay, he can not kill his son because he has proven himself worthy and totally devoted to God. But it's too late, Isaac is already dead. Just kidding!

In chapter twenty-three Sarah dies, and Abraham mourns for her and then gives his riches to bury 'his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah before Mamre'. The next chapter talks about how Abraham sent a servant to find a wife for his son, Isaac. He finds the one who is meant to be, after being guided by God to follow certain clues, and goes back to Isaac to introduce them. They 'know' each other and then Isaac is consoled of his mother's death. This shows God's covenant in work, even from now he is making him feel better.

Teacher’s Pets

In chapter ten we are told all about Noah’s family, and how after the flood they all separated and had their own languages and cultures. However, in chapter eleven it says that after the flood all men had one language and lived together and lived peacefully until God scattered them through the world and they became separated. I find this very contradicting and very annoying, you cannot make up your mind about a certain topic if its story is always changing.

Chapter twelve and thirteen tell the story of how, after man was one and had one language and one culture, God ordered Abram to leave his land: ‘Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee’. So Abram followed His orders like a perfect teacher’s pet and left Caanan with his wife and his nephew. Along the way he stopped to build altars and confer with God until they arrived to Egypt. Here, to avoid being killed out of jealousy he said that his beautiful wife, Sarai, was just his sister and so he was given riches and she was taken to the Pharaoh. Then plagues from God invaded the Pharaoh’s house and he found out the truth about Sarai and Abram, and they were all kicked out from Egypt. In chapter thirteen he and Lot, his nephew, parted ways- Lot to Jordan and the plains of the east while Abram was given by God all the rest of the land to govern.

It looks as if God always has favorites, he always has one man he protects and guides for seemingly no reason. But I think that it is done selfishly, He promises and protects these men and in return they follow Him, adore Him, make sacrifices to Him, and defend Him in the Earth. This is another quality that makes Lord God appear selfish, evil, and uncaring for His creations. Another point I disagree with here is that these ‘favorites’ of God never seem to do anything to deserve that treatment. Adam was stupid and just created (maybe out of boredom, we shall never know) by God, Noah just lived on earth and happened to love God, and Abram literally had nothing else going for him other than he being Noah’s descendant. Still, they can get away with anything and God jumps to defend and protect them. For example, Abram had no problem in having his wife handed over to another man, the Pharaoh in Egypt, and of having other women and men himself but as soon as God saw this, He began sending plagues to the Pharaoh in revenge. I find all this very unreasonable.

I have found the perfect word for it: ‘the Lord made a covenant with Abram’. Covenant! We can see that he made one with Noah and with Adam too, this kind of special bond with them. And we finally see what God sees in Abram, when Lot was in trouble he gathered an army and went to defeat Lot’s capturers. He did this without being told by God, so I see that there is in fact something in him that makes him stand out. Later on, God says to him ‘I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward’. He is kind of a fatherly figure to him, you could say. Anyway, what Abram asked for is to be able to have a boy with his wife, but he didn’t exactly get what he wished for. As Sarai was unable to give birth, he conceived one with Sarai’s maid, Hagar-with Sarai’s blessing too. Then Hagar ran away but was confronted by ‘an angel of the Lord’ and told to go back and have Abram’s child and call him Ishmael. It says that Ishmael would be ‘a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren’. This reminds me of our summer reading book, Ishmael, who is actually a gorilla. Both books have just become so much deeper.

College Life- or Not

There are so many words to find,

When describing this work of art,

But unfortunately none come to mind,

So please excuse this improvised start.

Well the obvious is there,

Two men in a complicated relationship

Reaching towards something, we don’t know where.

We see one that is naked (he sure can strip!)

And the other has clothes on.

The former one looks fatherly and wise,

Probably weary of his son.

This one, in turn, seems to, not quite so despise,

But he is not in such a hurry to strengthen their bond.

Maybe he’s going off to college, one might guess,

Or maybe it’s just God with nothing to respond

To Him leaving Adam to deal with their mess.

I hope you sincerely enjoyed

My rambling on,

And that next time he is seen,

Adam might at least wear an apron.

Adam and his Family- Noah and his Family

Chapter three talks about when Eve is talked into eating the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge by the snake, the ‘most subtil [of] any beast of the field’. Both her and Adam eat of the tree and so they can know the difference between good and evil, and they can also realize they are naked, a factor which they take care of by sewing ‘fig leaves together, and [making] themselves aprons’. Then Lord God finds out and punishes the snake for taking them to their ‘evil sides’ (by making them eat the fruit), punishes the woman by making her suffer when giving birth and gave her husband power over her, and kicks man and woman out of the Garden of Eden.

In this chapter I see god represented in a very humane way, he strolls through the garden, gets angry at Adam and Eve for disobeying him, and gets, dare I say it?, jealous of them becoming his equal, or having the knowledge to do so, therefore he does what he can to keep them from the tree of life and to keep them from becoming immortal and gods. I think most of us have an image of God as always good and peaceful, always in control and almighty, so I think that once you analyze these chapters you realize that he is not at all portrayed like that. This might be yet another false interpretation the Church has engraved in our heads, and it can be quite faith-shattering for some.

Another thing I noticed of this chapter is the ridiculous amount of sexism expressed in it. What is this all about how being punished by God was the woman’s fault, and how women made the first sin? I won’t deny it: yes, Eve ate of the tree that God had forbidden, but I didn’t see Adam very reluctant to try it, or contradicting her judgment. Eve was merely seduced by the snake’s promises of knowledge and it also in part Lord God’s fault, he deceived them by telling them ‘Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.’ Just to keep them inferior to Himself.

We again see God’s human side in chapter four, when he gets angry and curses Cain for killing his brother, Abel. He is cursed ‘sevenfold’, which I think means for seven of his generations since the chapter also talks about the sons and sons of and sons of several generations following Cain. It is explained how of every son, a new kind of people, you could say, was born. There are nomads, musicians, farmers, engineers, and finally men who believed and followed LORD God, Christians and Jews among them. In this chapter we also see male chauvinism occur, it only says ‘then began men to call upon the name of the Lord’, never including women.

There is some kind of fascination with family trees, and with ages of grandfathers, because there are a lot of parts where that is all we hear about. However, I find it peculiar how some men mentioned live up to nine hundred years, such as Adam, and some lived as few as seventy years, like Cainan. I wonder if this has any story behind it, and you could say I was hooked.

Chapter six, seven, and eight are the story we all know about Noah’s Ark, god sends flood upon the earth but first tells Noah to save himself and his family, and two animals of every species, upon a giant ark. But here we see something that, I at least, had never seen before: why God decided to destroy the world. What I understood is that Lord God saw that people were evil and he thought ‘Oh, I screwed up. Let’s kill everybody!’ This to me shows another very human characteristic of Him, redundantly a bad characteristic. It shows that God saw something He didn’t like, a mistake He had made, and without even attempting to solve it just decided to destroy it. It is like what a lot of people do, wipe a clean slate, turn over a new leaf, but in most cases people at least try to solve it. I don’t like the way God is being portrayed; it makes Him seem inferior to humans morally. But then again, we never know! I would have liked if it was explained why God chose Noah, why ‘found grace in the eyes of the Lord’.

In chapter nine this story is continued, telling how God did basically the same thing he did to Adam to Noah and his sons, gave them power over the earth and every living creature in it, as he had done a long time ago. It is exactly a new start for the world, the same story but different characters in it.

Creation- First Draft

Today we started reading the Bible, the King James Bible.
Chapter one of the Book of Genesis talks about the first six days in which god created Earth and Heaven and everything in it.
Chapter two talks about the seventh day, when He decided to rest, and created man and then created the world for him.

I find these first two chapters kind of confusing, because even though it seems like chapter two is a continuance of the first chapter, it is a completely different story. It describes creation basically in the opposite order of the first version we are told, the former one states that God first created light, Day and Night, then oceans and land, trees and plants, then sea and flying creatures, then land animals, and finnally men. He then gave men power to reign over everything, all this in six days. In the second story God rested on the seventh day and then he created men and all of the creatures to keep him company, including creating a woman out of Adam's own rib.

While reading these stories I don't know what to think, for they sound as if they were the only thing that was true but at the same time they contradict each other. I am also not quite so comfortable analyzing such a religious and known text as the Bible, but it will be a new and different experience.

Phaeton is Back, and Shorter!

Well, the title says it all:

My father lent me his prized chariot.
I lost control, the world perished a lot.

- Daniela Berenguer and Amber Clower

Same Old, Same Old

The story of Baucis and Philemon is one that has been very common in different times and for different purposes, the one I know the best is a story in the Bible.

It's about these two gods who want to test and 'see what people [are] really like'. So they disguse themselves as beggars and knock on 'a thousand doors... and a thousand doors [are] slammed on them'. They get to this shabby looking house just before giving up and are tajen in and fed by an old couple who doesn't have much, but what they do have they use it to help others. Then the gods reveal themselves as who they truly are and the couple is rewarded for their goodness.

This is a touching story, it really is, and it has a very clear message that most everyone can understand, which is probably why it is used and adapted so much and in such different ways. The message that we get is that while everyone else, those who had things to help, rejected these two people in need, these other people, Baucis and Philemon, who had almost nothing, opened their arms wide and welcomed these two stranders into their home and into their lives. This kind of thing can only be described as pure goodness of the heart, and it is admirable.

We also see something that we see in most of the stories in the play: the bond of love. Love is represented towards these two perfect strangers when they are taken in by Baucis and Philemon, and towards each other. When the gods reveal themselves and they offer Baucis and Philemon anything they want, the first thing that comes to their minds and what they both ask for is that they both die at the same moment. Even when they culd have had anything in the world, riches, money, food, they choose a life and a death in love with each other. They cannot imagine the grief of one of them having to live forever without the other one and at the end, when they turn into a tree, blended together, they pass on to eternity with each other, in a loving embrace.

This is a great story, but what depresses me is how unlikely something like that is today. Overuling the obvious flaw thet now-a-days we all live in apartments or would most likely never let a random, and poor, at that, person into our houses, nobody of today's time would be that nice to someone they didn't know. It is horrible to say, but in today's society, class means everything, and you always see people turning away from crippled people in the street, or closing their windows to the people who are begging for change. If we can't even look at peole who are dirty, or people who don't look the same as us, do you really think that we are going to invite them over for dinner at our homes?
Another thing that is probably lost over time is that strong bond of love, or the value of materialistic things. If you asked ten people what they would wish for if they could have one thing, I'm sure at least seven would ask for something related to money or richness. The whole sanctity and integrity of love is gone, replaced by all the fool's promises of greatness achieved by money. It is a sad and horrible idea, but it is probably true.




I really liked this play, and it has started many insightful thoughts inside my head!

Psych Majors

We start reading the story of Phaeton, the son of Apollo, the god of the sun, by hearing him speaking with a psychologist. I myself wondered if therapists even existed at that point in history, but that's beside the point. So what screwed him up so much that he needed a shrink? You might wonder. Oh, he merely lit fire to the Earth, literally, and 'completely and utterly destroyed' himself. It was 'O-V-E-R' for him. And our good friend the therapist links it all back to premature parental neglect. Let's retrace the story:

Phaeton's mother has a one night stand with Apollo, the sun, and out comes Phaeton. Apollo can't be with his son, for obvious duty-related reasons and so Phaeton grows up without a father. Nobody believes him that his dad is the god Apollo so one day he decides to go to him and prove it.
After a hard journey he gets to his father temple, ‘this passage is never easy’ says the therapist, referring to reforming the bond between estranged father and son. Apollo feels terrible for his son and offers him a gift, anything he wishes for. And what else should our rash and youthful youth want, other than to drive his father’s carriage and light up the sky? After all, ‘it’s [his] turn’.
Although Apollo knows it can have horrible consequences, ‘[he] promised’, and so he reluctantly hands over the keys. All the way that Phaeton flies, Apollo is yelling advice, ‘Don’t fly too high, nor too low, stay in the tracks, go slantwise.’
Of course Phaeton ignores him, and he quickly loses control of the reins and of the carriage, it was ‘as if no one was driving’. We know what happened then: he set the earth on fire and fell from the sky.

I think that the fact that this story is played by a young, arrogant boy, who probably had more attention than normal because of his father not being present, has an important meaning. It shows the irrationality of the favor he asks of Apollo, the feeling of superiority, which was really just immaturity, which makes him think he can do his father’s job as well, or better, than him. It is how many teenagers feel, or at least how other people portray them, that they are better than everyone else, that they can do anything that is given to them, and that they have more rights than others to do what they want.

The story also shows that a lot of the times, we don’t know what our actions will lead to, how grave the consequences might be. In this case, Phaeton is seeking proof that his father is the sun, which by the way I find kind of selfish, and decides to do something that seems cool to him, never realizing that his mistake could end as an end to our world.

The story of Phaeton captures perfectly what is sometimes called ‘teenage rebellion’, but one that brought grave consequences to the whole world.


The story of Eros and Psyche tells about Eros, known as Cupid, son of Aphrodite, and his wife Psyche. Theirs was a strange marriage, for they have never seen each other and never should. One night she decides to go see him while he is asleep, for she believes that he is a monster, a belief triggered by ‘her jealous sisters’. While she is spying on him, Eros wakes up and sees her doing so. Aphrodite decides to punish Psyche by sending on impossible and terrifying tasks, but out of her love for Eros, Psyche she fulfilled everything Aphrodite threw at her. In the end, Psyche was turned immortal by Zeus and she and Eros stayed happily married forever.

I think this story shows us the complexity of a human personality, and it shows both good and bad qualities of it. At first we see the impatience and mistrust from Psyche towards her husband whom she supposedly knows, trusts, and loves. She lets herself be influenced by other people into believing things for herself, and that is how she gets into the big mess in the first place. However, we also see her perseverance at making things right. This shows us how strong the bond of love is, and how she realized her mistakes and was willing to go to extreme measures to make them up. And we can see that all her efforts paid off, they both end up getting their Happily Ever After.

Incest!

The story of Pomona and Vertumnus was totally unpredictable to me. Actually, I think it was the story of Myrrha and her father, Cinyras, which surprised me. Again we find ourselves in the circumstance of there being a main story and a story within that one. The big story was about a god called Vertumnus who was desperately in love with Pomona, a wood nymph whose only care was that of the plants and trees and who ‘kept aloof from any suitor’. He dressed up as anything he could think up in an attempt of getting her to fall in love with him, but he failed each time. Once, while dressed up as an old lady, he sat her down and proceeded to say how foolish she was to ignore Aphrodite, the goddess of love, and to tell her the story of Myrrha:

Myrrha was a young girl who, like Pomona, had many suitors but ignored every one of them. One day Aphrodite, tired of being disregarded, cursed Myrrha with an undying passion for none other than her father, Cinyras. The girl suffers from this, thinking that just thinking about it is an unholy crime. Finally, she can resist it no more and with the help of a nursemaid convinces her father to be blindfolded and do it with a ‘pretty girl [who] adores’ him, without knowing that it really is his daughter. After repeating this three times, Cinyras grows curious and takes of his blindfold. When he sees who it is, he looks at Myrrha for a long time, as if refusing to believe it, and then tries to drown her. She escapes and suffers an unbelievable amount, she prays to the gods to ‘change [her]; make [her] something else; transform [her] entirely’. Some say that she turned into a tree, others that she gave birth to a boy named Adonis, others say that she dissolved into tears and into the river.

When he finishes the story, Pomona seems unmoved, but she tells Vertumnus to ‘take off that idiotic dress’ and ‘that ridiculous wig’. Then she goes of with him in his natural form, no disguises needed.

From the mini-story of Myrrha and her father all I can say is how unfair it was for Myrrha. The only reason she was cursed with this was because she didn’t respond to any of her suitors or to Aphrodite’s offers. I think this only reflects on today’s society, where being single or not having a boyfriend is so frowned upon. I find this totally ridiculous, and I find even sadder that you hear so many beautiful, young girls lying or feeling ashamed about not having someone, even though it doesn’t make you a better person, a worse one, or has any difference in you whatsoever. It is perfectly okay to decide for yourself if you want to love somebody or if you don’t, and you shouldn’t let yourself be affected by what other people think or what they say is right. In the story, Myrrha believes that what she wants is so wrong because ‘we have laws’, I find this totally wrong even though, in this case, I agree that incest love is not so normal.

The main story I think has one lesson: be yourself no matter what (and no matter how cliché and self-help book-y it sounds). Pomona paid no attention to Vertumnus when he was wearing all those disguises and acting like all those different people, but in the end she gives him a chance when he is just being himself. No disguises needed.

Back to the Basics

The story of Erysichthon (what a weird name, by the way) is about a guy who didn't believe in the gods, or respected anything that was sacred or related to them. One day he cuts down a tree sacred to the goddess Ceres and she, for revenge, sends Hunger upon him. He starts to eat, and eat, and eat but his hunger doesn't end. He ends up selling his own mother in exchange for some food, but he remains starving. Finally, he destroys himself, his hunger being so urgent that he starts to eat himself.

If you think about it, Erysichthon brings this punishment of eternal hunger upon himself. He disrespects the gods and makes fun of their sacredness and their rituals. I mean, it's okay not to believe in something, which is very common in religion, but what need does he have of mocking the gods, of undermining the system? He thinks he is almighty, and that nothing can affect him, we see this after the tree says 'you will never get away with this' and he sarcastically responds 'Oh, now I'm really frightened' . He speaks to everyone as if they were inferior and he thinks the world of himself, this we can see when the narrator warns him that the tree was sacred to Ceres and he rudely shoves him away and calls his a 'pious son of a bitch'.

I think that in this story, the huger that Erysichthon has is a creative punishment, and a great way of torture, I would say, after seeing what it leads him to do. The hunger could also be a form of greed, it never ends and no matter how much he has he always wants more, 'I need more! I must have more!' 'I WANT MORE!' Erysichthon exclaims. In fact, this undying hunger, or greed, leads him to sell his own mother and to eat his own foot! The saddest part is, I don't think that Erysichthon even realizes what he did to earn this, he is too blinded by his needs to think of anyone else, which is how he always was.

Inside this story there is the story of his mother, which shows a totally different morale than Erysichthon's story. She is sold by her son to a boat man, just so that her son could have more to eat. While she is being forced to row in the man's boat at her old age, she prays to Poseidon the god of the seas, 'Poseidon, if you remember me, come and save me now'. He hears her prayers and brings her into the sea, turning her into the little girl she was before and setting her free to play at his shores. I think that Poseidon helped her because of her good spirit, when she was a girl and she 'gave him praise... shouting as she ran among the waves'. She must have done good deeds in her life because it says that 'that is the kind of sweet, unbidden praise the gods adore and do not forget'.

I think it is really interesting how two stories so controversial as these can take place in one same story and between such, supposedly, close characters.