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!