Mark: The End of Jesus (or Not)

In Mark, I read a different point of view of the encounter between Pilate and Jesus. Now I see that the gospels tell the story of Jesus, from their own points of view. As I stated in one of my previous posts while reading John, I defended Pilate. In John, I found some arguments that led me to believe that Pilate wasn't completely guilty. In Mark, Pilate decides to crucify Jesus in less than a paragraph and his methods of defending him are completely useless and seem to require no effort. Here, "And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him,to be crucified." (15:15) And that was it. So after reading Mark's point of view, I can say that I didn't see Pilate the same way as before.

While Jesus was carrying the cross, he said the following, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (15:35) This leaves me wondering. Didn't Jesus know that he was going to die in order to spread his religion and save his people? Didn't Jesus know that he was going to suffer? Didn't Jesus predict his death? Didn't Jesus know he would suffer for good? Then why did he think God had forsaken him? Was he in so much pain that he thought God had betrayed him and given up on him? Or maybe, he is just saying this for the Christian reader to know how much he suffered. For example, in the Catholic religion, we pay for our sins and we pay our debt to Jesus for carrying the cross for us. It's our duty. Maybe by stating that Jesus did actually suffer, even though he knew he was sacrificing for love, would encourage us to follow him? This is when I start thinking of the "commercial" side of the Bible, for lack of a better word. I mean, Jesus needed followers, he needed believers. Like Wal-Mart needs customers so they give discounts.




* I would just like to point out, completely removing myself from the subject at hand, how I found another passage mentioning "kissing" between 2 men, an issue that was heavily debated while we were reading Gilgamesh. Read at your own risk: "And he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; take him, and lead him away safely. And as soon as he was come, he goeth straightway to him, and saith, Master, master; and kissed him." (14:45) So, there.

Mark: The Middle of Romance and Exorcism

I must say that while reading this I felt a bit better about the way of life that the Bible encourages. The bible encourages equality, love, fairness, kindness, and even though it may come to an extreme that is way too conservative, most of it should be a guide for everyday life. What I am not exactly pleased to announce is that some of the lines in Mark reminded me of a Nicholas Sparks cheese marathon or just to make it sound a little better, an upgraded Nicholas Sparks novel. This is the one that made me remember The Notebook's "tear-provoking" lines: "For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."(Mark 10:9) "They twain shall be one flesh." How beautiful. And cheesy. But true. Or supposed to be true. Man and woman are one. But it's so contradictory. It's not like they are considered equals, even today, for some things. But things have advanced since the times when we weren't allowed to receive an education or to vote. But now man and woman can love each other as equals. But perhaps it wasn't even meant to be seen in a romantic way, saying that man and woman are one. Maybe I've been reading way too many romantic novels and watching way too many romantic movies, so my girly instinct was to think of this romantically. Maybe in a non-romantic way, it just means that they have to be equal in every single way. If the man gets a cookie, the woman should get a cookie as well. So don't treat the man as if he were greater than the woman because they are one and the same. Ah, but my fifteen-year-old self thinks the Nicholas Sparks version is a lot more entertaining and laughable.

There was this event mentioned in Mark that disturbed me a bit and that is quite often used in exclusive money-making, bad horror movies: exorcism. I'm not even going to google it, the word itself is so scary. But this is what I believe Jesus did to the boy who "hath a dumb spirit", I mean what other spirit could it be? What this boy is described as having is stated in the following quote, "And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us." (9:22) I have to say that I really don't believe there is a bad spirit that needs to be driven away with the power of Jesus, I think that it's just an illness such as schizophrenia or Alzheimer's. This is where I start thinking of all the rest of the things that don't seem too believable in the bible. The water being turned into wine, the opening of the sea, a talking snake, an ark taking in the last survivors of the human race, etc... But it's all a question of faith. I just see these things as symbols rather than facts, taking them seriously would really drive me crazy.

Mark: The Beginning of Hope

In my personal opinion, I found the first chapter of Mark to have a few similarities with the first chapter of John. Here is one of the passages from the beginning of John:

"There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light." (John 1:7-1:8)
Here we are talking about some kind of messenger or witness that is there to see Jesus and perhaps, help him.

Now let's see the beginning of Mark: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." (Mark 1:1-1:5)
You can see that the same person is being talked about. We are talking about John the baptist that is "guiding" the "light". In other words, John is the messenger that is there to witness Jesus and to corroborate that he is the son of God.

The main difference between John and Mark is that John is not as straightforward as Mark. In John, metaphors and poetic-sounding words are used to represent God, Jesus, and John. John is a "witness" and Jesus is "the Light". After discussing with some of my classmates about John, Mark, and the rest of the gospels, I often heard them saying that John seemed to be the most boring gospel, and the one that required the most analysis because it isn't as direct as Mark or the rest of the gospels. I have to say that after reading the beginning of John, the beginning of Mark was a bit of a relief, events were stated in a clearer way, in my opinion. But in John, it's simply prettier or more decorative, so it makes for a nice read. You would much rather read about Jesus being a "Light" than being simply "Jesus." By stating that Jesus is a light we are saying that there is some kind of hope. Light signals hope. And by stating that John is a "witness", you can infer that Jesus is going to do something so magnificent and miraculous that is deserves or needs, a witness. Not that in Mark the reader doesn't know that it's heading into tat direction. Mark starts with the baptism of Jesus, and it's descriptions are very much obvious: "And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him" (Mark 1:10) The "spirit" of a "dove" was descending upon him. This is another influence I am reminded of that the bible had on Catholicism. In Catholicism, God exists in three different forms: the father, the son, and the holy spirit. The father is God, the son is Jesus, and the holy spirit is the dove. I'm not really sure why the dove, that is something I'd really like to look into. But, without knowing anything else, the first thing I think of when I see a dove is hope. To me, believers are the ones searching for hope, and believing in God gives them hope.

TTBA

LINK FOR WATER ENTRIES:

https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1rO1kXSbW5J4LVEMGnk8SNUREobO4iC6nfP3s81qsuck&hl=es


LINK FOR EARTH ENTRIES:

https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=193a0SDBda5m6xtvH_DOh9pwIr5i81FmXFmKWOOHYyb4#

LINK FOR AIR ENTRIES:

https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1h6YO8Wky_YUPu-8Zq8F_z78MePDpFnbqOgz9_jd6vhw&hl=es

LINK FOR FIRE ENTRIES

https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZh7AJIoaq1GZGZyZHE5ZGNfMjA0ZDI2NXRyYzI&hl=en

John 13-21: Jesus and Destiny

What happened in these readings with Jesus and Pilate, were some events I'd been waiting to write about and discuss. Is Pilate thoroughly to blame for the death of Jesus? Yes, it was his destiny and Jesus knew he was going to die to later resurrect. But, there are always the what if's you can't help but wonder about. What if Jesus was saved by Pilate? Is Pilate really as bad as he seems to be? Did Pilate try to help Jesus? And if he did, why does it seem so overlooked?

At first, while reading John 18, I didn't see Pilate as a prejudiced leader, his actions made sense and were not unfair. Pilate asked the Jews to judge Jesus according to their own laws, separating himself completely from the issue as can be seen in the following quote: "If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death..." (John 18:31) But then the Jews went all complicated on Pilate and told him, basically, that the crime Jesus had committed was so felonious that he deserved death, and they weren't allowed to sentence him to death. Pilate is put on a very difficult position. To sentence a man ,for whom he is not responsible for, to death. To kill him for having committed a crime that does not deserve death. He even confirms it, "Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?" (John 18:35) Pilate did not find Jesus guilty of any crime as you can see in the following quote: "...he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all." (John 18:38)

So far, we can come up with a few conclusions. 1) Pilate did not feel responsible for Jesus as he was a Jew. 2) Pilate did not find Jesus guilty of any crime. 3) Pilate had to do something, the Jews were going to go crazy if Jesus did not receive a punishment for declaring himself as Son of God. So his next move made complete sense. Pilate "scourged" Jesus. This is the part in which we are supposed to feel bad for Jesus and hate Pilate because he is so unfair! But in my interpretation, isn't this Pilate's move to help Jesus? To scourge him and then release him? To please the Jews by punishing him, but being equitable by letting him go afterward? Pilate did not find any "fault" in Jesus at all, as he mentions several times. But there was nothing Pilate could do about a crowd's uproar and plea for Jesus to be crucified. I defend Pilate because there are these small and possibly meaningless (because he did allow Jesus to be crucified in the end) moments in which I felt sorry for him. I really do think that he tried to help Jesus, "Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." (John 19:12), he was just afraid. It was written that Jesus had to die and resurrect.

John 7-13: To Throw Rocks At Them

Jesus did not hide who he was. He was not cowardly and he was not embarrassed. This is a lesson to me. It must take lots of courage to learn how to be yourself without caring what the rest thinks. Just to get to the point when you only care what you think. This following quote from John states it very clearly, "For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world." (John 7.4) But Jesus wasn't talking about himself or what he was, He was talking in the name of God and God only. He didn't give himself credit for "deceiving" Israelites. He was the messenger, as I mentioned in my previous post. "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me."(John 7.16)

After reading the Old Testament and comparing it to the New Testament, I have found that I enjoy Jesus as a character a lot more than any other character in the Old Testament. He is just so impartial and fair. A person who sees all flaws and understands humanity so well. Someone who knows what he's doing and how he guides his followers. What he said in John 8 was what affected me the most. It was about a woman who had committed adultery and Jesus was asked to throw the first rock at her. Could he be any more noble and just? What he said was perfect, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her". It just makes so much more sense than anything else in the world. It makes more sense than killing a man to get his wife, than sibling rivalry, even more than guiding people across Egypt to their promised land. "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her". How can you punish a sinner for being discovered once, when you have sinned your whole life without knowing it? Or how can you punish a sinner when you are a sinner and you know it? Does it matter that she was a woman? No. She was a sinner. But so were all the rest who were willing to punish her. They were all willing to torment her and humiliate her in order to hide their own sins and be able to blame her for them. Because if she was the one punished, they weren't to blame. Or that is the way I saw it when reading this.

While reading this I felt a rush of relief because it was as if the world had been an unfair place with unjust ways of thinking until Jesus came along. Jesus came along with his then "unorthodox" ways and changed everything. All that was bad had the chance to become good. All the sins were forgiven. If Jesus had not been right there, right then, and if he wouldn't have spoken, things would have never been the way they are now. I mean, who really knows? This has all just been an amazing example to the world about goodness and values. And to be fair knowing boundaries. The Bible is sometimes called a way of life, and I don't think I could understand that at all until I read these chapters. It really did change after Jesus, and to be like Jesus is not wrong.

But it's not like they listened to him. I'm just saying that I would've listened to him. I forgot to mention that Jesus almost had rocks thrown at him for what he had just said. The crowd listening to him protest is furious. They must have been thinking, Who does this man think he is to change our ways of thinking? It was Jesus, Son of God.

TTBA Entries

email: sickofarose@gmail.com

link for entries: https://docs.google.com/document/edit?id=1IxmG2twFvzp0Cho3c-6AYrX7cZzTkWEdabvjwG7_RhY&hl=es

The Gospel According to St. John 1-6: Water is Not Only Water

The New Testament seems to go back to the beginning and mention what we were already aware of when talking about the beginning. The following quote states the beginning and is one of the first lines in John,"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."(John 1.1) I wonder what is meant by the "Word"? Is the word some the way things should be or some kind of written form that should be passed on from generation to generation, like the Bible? I saw "the Word" as the way things are, period. Nothing more to say, God is all their is, the answer to all of our questions, the only way of life there is, "the Word". As you go on reading John, it is evident that the messenger and the one supposed to spread the word is Jesus. Jesus was born to spread "the Word". Jesus is God and the Beginning and the Word, according to John. Even though at the beginning of the reading you get the impression that it is John who is supposed to be the messenger, "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe." (John 1.7) But as you can also see, John is actually a witness. A witness of the greatness that Jesus will be and the one who "all men through him might believe."

Something that might seem a bit out of topic and very overanalyzed were my thoughts in the way Jesus answered his questions when he was asked whether he was the prophet or the messenger or whatever he was. "And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias." (John 1.21-23) Jesus was very direct to the world about who he was and he expressed it clearly with no shame or modesty. He was the son of God and he knew it and he was going to fulfill his destiny. Jesus wasn't scared that he would get shunned and rejected or even killed. But maybe that is also because he knew he was immortal. He wasn't scared because he had God's protection but it's also nice to think that he would have done it because he didn't care either way. He also had enough methods to prove himself (turning water into wine).



I remember that when I was a child and I read about the various miracles Jesus executed, I didn't think of them as a big deal, and I hardly believed in them. I read that Jesus turned water into wine and I couldn't understand why it was a miracle it wasn't that big a deal. Why wouldn't they just keep the water? But when you think about it, not everything is literal. Jesus is constantly using metaphors that might leave everybody else confused and wondering... "Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." (John 4.13-15) What if Jesus' water is God. What this quote is saying is that you have to drink the special water that Jesus is giving you because you will never be thirsty. If you drink the normal water, you'll survive, but you'll be thirsty faster. Isn't water faith? If we "drink" the Catholic faith, then we'll live longer and healthier? If we choose not to, we'll live, just not as long and not as healthy. I believe John has subliminal messages hidden behind metaphors, that are somewhat persuasive.

Tao Te Ching: Ending

Tao Te Ching 29-47:

I am currently reading this book called A Million Little Pieces by James Frey, a memoir on his drug addiction and his lengthy stay in a rehab center eventually leading to his recovery. To give some background info on the book, once it was released it was critically acclaimed and even Oprah sponsored it on her show, making it an immediate bestseller. Then it was discovered that some of the events Frey talked about in his book didn’t actually happen, making his book part fiction and making him a fraud, a liar and kind of the culprit of Oprah’s reputation after the news came around. This is why I decided to read it, because of all the so-called “controversy” behind it. Also, the different format in which it was written: the dialogue has no quotations.



What surprised me while I was reading was that Frey mentioned the Tao Te Ching.

Tao Te Ching 13-28: Accepting Misfortune

While reading these sections of the Tao Te Ching I came to the conclusion that the writer wants to convince the reader that in order to maintain proper order in life one must remain passive. Passive means accepting or allowing what happens or what others do, without active response or resistance. And not even accepting the good things, misfortune is included in passiveness. This next quote proves my point, “Accept misfortune as the human condition” (13). Ok. This ignites a violent combustion in my brain, until fumes come out of my ears and I can’t even form words with my mouth. I don’t understand. One cannot just accept. One needs to fight. Should we settle for misfortune? Is it even slightly acceptable to conform being misfortunate? There are just unspoken rules in life that are instinct, unless you are retarded. Rule number one, you want to be happy. You want to be happy. Period. So if you are misfortunate and you are here to be happy, you smile. You make your best effort to be happy. You don’t even have to smile, maybe that doesn’t make you happy. Maybe frowning at strangers makes you happy. So, frown at strangers. But, never ever settle. We can’t accept misfortune as the human condition! What is misfortune to this book, anyway?

These were all my feelings while I was reading. I thought that perhaps I was thinking too drastically about this and maybe I should calm down and keep reading and hope for some sort of apology for this disappointing statement. So I kept on reading and shortly thereafter I ran into this quote, “Misfortune comes from having a body. Without a body, how can there be misfortune?” A body to me represents all things superficial. When you think of bodies, you think of publicity, models, billboards, beer, magazines, etc… You picture beautiful women flaunting their perfect bodies to the world making teenagers insecure and making independent women depressed. Anyway, we are talking about everything superficial if you take the word “body”, literally. It’s all in how much you love yourself and how others love you. Take for example this quote, “Love the world as your own self, then you can truly care for all things” (13). If we reflect physically what we are inside, aren’t we “truly taking care of all things”? Or you can also see it this way, as soon as you love the world as much as you love yourself, then you can “truly care for all things”.

What if we didn’t have superficial concerns? Maybe if we didn’t have a body we’d have more time to focus on making our inner being better and more passive. Instead of worrying about how we look, we’d be worried about how we act because we wouldn’t have a look. We wouldn’t have a body. What if we were all just wandering souls speaking to each other through echoes and what if we had no body or face or anything? What if we were simply air? We would be air that thinks and feels, of course. Would that make us less misfortunate, not having bodies? The ancient masters in Tao Te Ching are described in the following way: “The ancient masters were subtle, mysterious, profound, responsive. The depth of their knowledge is unfathomable, All we can do is describe their appearance. Watchful, like men crossing a winter stream. Alert, like men aware of danger. Courteous, like visiting guests. Yielding, like ice about to melt. Simple, like uncarved blocks of wood. Hollow like caves. Opaque, like muddy pools.”(15) Note that even though the writer stated that he would only describe their appearance, he does everything but. He describes what they portray. Their looks or “body” are not important. They are great and wise because of what they are, not how they look. They are seen as “yielding”, “simple”, and “watchful” because of what they do, not how they truly look without taking action. It’d be amazing if we all had the power not to judge a person for how they look before they speak.

Tao Te Ching 1-12: Heaven and Earth Rule Us, It's Nothing Personal

"Under heaven all can see beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness.
All can know good as good only because there is evil." (2)
Everything about this is true. What if evil didn't exist? Would good still be considered good or would there be something else? Something even better than good that would ask more of humanity. What if this other good would be so good, that what we considered good would be evil? Just a thought. But as it says, "Difficult and easy complement each other. Long and short contrast each other; High and low rest upon each other; Voice and sound harmonize each other; Front and back follow one another."(2) Without "evil" there wouldn't be any "good". Everything in the world exists in order to complement something else. Opposites do attract seeing it this way.

"If nothing is done then all will be well." (3) Could this refer to peace? To let things be and work out because in the end it all happens for a reason and one does not need to interfere?

"In dwelling, be close to the land.
In meditation, go deep in the heart.
In dealing with others, be gentle and kind.
In speech, be true.
In ruling, be just.
In daily life, be competent.
In action, be aware of the time and the season.

No fight: No blame." (8)
This should be put up on a huge billboard on the streets or something, for everyone to see. That we have to know peace and swallow pride. But to be honest and straightforward, Tao hasn't spoken of capitalism and war and politics and why it is so damn hard to do so. It's as if he is describing how one should be with his inner self and in a somewhat small-scale. Personal. Which is very separate from business (capitalism, war, politics, and all those things that make peace complicated), that shouldn't be taken personally. For example in a business deal when you might be forced to evict a person from their home, it has nothing to do with who they are and how you would treat them if you actually knew them. It's just business, nothing personal. No fight: No blame, it's nothing personal. Perhaps on a personal level, the person evicting you from your home would treat you as the Tao says. I do agree that these are an amazing way to be and a great guide on how to live.

Heaven and Earth are two terms that were mentioned in Tao Te Ching. "Heaven and earth last forever. Why do heaven and earth last forever? They are unborn, So ever living."(7) "Retire when work is done. This is the way of heaven." (9) The way I see it, one is supposed to be the way "Heaven" and "Earth" wants us to be simply because that is the way it is meant to be. Because they are "unborn" and "so ever living" and we live here, we are supposed to be the way we are supposed to be. Since "Heaven" and "Earth" have been here the longest and will be here the longest, they know what they're doing better than we do.

I was very pleased with the Tao's interpretation of women and their hard work, which wasn't very much acknowledged in our previous readings.
"Can you play the role of woman?
Understanding and being open to all things,
Are you able to do nothing?
Giving birth and nourishing,
Bearing yet not possessing,
Working yet not taking credit,
Leading yet not dominating,
This is the Primal Virtue." (10)

Asking yourself if "You are able to do nothing?" in this passage might mean that man shouldn't think himself superior than "woman" and let pride get in the way of giving her credit. If you are able to do nothing it means that you are able to control yourself from doing things that might make your insecurities feel better. And end up hurting someone else.

Analects Books 15, 17, 18: Existential Crisis and Clever Flatterers

I was very interested by the opening passage of book fifteen. It said the following, "Like Book Seventeen, this book is a lengthy collection of generally short passages without any clear unifying theme." It's interesting how it isn't expected of the reader to find any sense in the Analects, because there isn't any clear statement that makes sense at first sight. It just makes so much more sense as you read on.



When one arrives at an existential crisis, a main question might be "what now?" What Now? Now that I have asked myself all of the possible questions to why I am here and what I'm doing here and what I'm supposed to do, and I have realized that there is no possible answer that will solve my problems because there is no clear answer that will give me what I want to hear, What Now? Confucius is giving away one answer,
"Is there one word that can serve as a guide for one's entire life?"
The Master answered, "Is it not understanding? Do not impose on others what you yourself desire." (15.24)
So in order for me to be guided my entire life, according to Confucius, all I have to do is understand. Understand. Understand others, he must mean; because if we need guiding then how can we possibly understand ourselves? If we did, we wouldn't be looking for the one word that would guide us our entire lives. Perhaps this is why we search for answers all the time.

We can search for answers through religion, conversations, relationships, our own thoughts, reading every kind of book that exists just to see how the rest of the world thinks, and if I think the same way. Being exposed to so many mysteries and things that we are desperate to answer, makes a mind very curious. I, for example, have arrived at an existential crisis. Or maybe just another teenage phase. Because, really, I am not old enough to know what I'm going to be. Or at least that's what people say. "Don't worry about that, yet." But aren't I "being" right now? I am but I'm also going to be. So many thoughts and questions and answers, my brain hurts.

I would like to touch another subject in The Analects, which I think I was subconsciously looking for was flattering. (This is from Book 16, which we weren't supposed to read, but I did, and I liked it and thought I should write about it.)
Confucius said, "Befriending the upright, those who are true to their word, or those of broad learning–these are beneficial types of friendship. Befriending clever flatterers, skillful dissemblers, or smoothly glib–these are the harmful types of friendship."(16.4)
I wonder if by "clever flatterers", Confucius means butt kissers (AKA: teacher's pet or suck up). Why do you have to be overly nice to people you don't even like just because you think it will be beneficial to you later? Shouldn't you be rewarded for what you truly are and for sincerity rather than for being a suck up and being downright untruthful and selfish? I think it's perfectly fine to be nice to "important" people as long as you're being sincere about it. But if you're being super nice to someone you bumped into in the hallways and as soon as this person leaves you admit you were simply lying for your own benefit, that's wrong. Can't people just be nice to people they like and be normal with people they don't? Society is so artificial. In order to step up the ladder you have to be a fake robot with a cheery personality. So I agree with Confucius, don't befriend an idiot who knows exactly what he's saying and why, befriend those who are "true to their word"!

Faith vs Logic

Logic is what prevails in today’s society and for something to be considered true it has to be proven. I still cannot understand what is wrong about expressing your opinion whether atheist or not, but I guess Cates must have broken many of society’s rules by teaching Darwin. In Inherit the Wind logic and faith are tested. In the movie the facts or books representing logic/science and faith are Origin of the Species and The Bible. After watching the movie I’ve made up my mind and overlooked faith because of its illogical reasoning even though its defenders had the wittiest responses. When asked whether a sponge has the right to think, Henry Drummond responds with a smart, “I don't know. I'm a man, not a sponge!”



Darwin’s theories (Origin of the Species) are very controversial and unorthodox at the time even though they make a lot more sense than The Bible’s unjustifiable views on creation, which I will come to explain subsequently. We all know that Adam and Eve were the first man and the first woman and that Eve bare Cain and Abel. But, with whom did Cain and Abel procreate? Where did their wives come from? How did Abraham come to be? Where did the rest of the world come from? The obvious response and the logical response would be that Adam and Eve were not the only man and woman in the world, but since the bible did not clarify this and stated the opposite of this, it was wrong. What the bible said, admitting that it was saying that Adam and Eve were the first humans, was accurately describe the creation of man, talking about it as if it had been something never seen before. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” (Genesis 1.28) Then there is another contradiction. What the bible is telling them to do is to be fruitful and to multiply, but how is this possible if they only had two boys? This goes along with the story of Noah and how he stayed inside an ark while God killed the rest of the world. Then what was the point of Adam and Eve? They only way the defenders of the Bible could respond to this would be by stating that the bible did not mean this literally and that the stories are only meant to teach lessons, not because they actually happened. Except the Bible never clarifies this, so the Christian religion is led to believe that all of this really did happen.

Another point that can be analyzed and proved wrong, and that was briefly touched in the movie was sex or procreation or in the Bible’s words to be fruitful. When Drummond is asked what the biblical interpretation of sex was, he answered that it was the original sin. Drummond is supposedly a man who knows the Bible by heart and can cite its passages well, by the way. So he was saying that to reproduce was a sin? Very contradictory.

Science is more involved in this point as it involves the whole universe. God only claimed to have created day, night, and the stars. “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.” (Gen. 1) But what is very much obvious and scientifically proven is that there are other planets out there other than stars and there is gravity and the way things work that can be explained more clearly and with more sense than how it is “explained” in the Bible.

A Geek With Virtue

"I transmit rather than innovate. I trust in and love the ancient ways. I might thus humbly compare myself to Old Peng." (7.1)


I was again inspired by the Analects, I think they are so wise and enlightening.
"I will not open the door for a mind that is not already striving to understand, nor will I provide words to a tongue that is not already struggling to speak. If I hold up one corner of a problem, and the student cannot come back to me with the other three, I will not attempt to instruct him again."(7.8)
I agree with this. I think that a mind that isn't already curious and eager to learn more, is not worth teaching. Why teach things that are not interesting to them? Shouldn't we be interested? It'd be amazing if we could all be thrilled by challenges.

Confucius principles seem to be so passionate, I really like that. It's like in order to learn well you must be passionate about what you're learning. I think it's just instinct. Curiosity. Not because you absolutely have to, but because you are genuinely interested in the subject and you are desperate to know what happens next. "He is the type of person who is so passionate that he forgets to eat, whose joy renders him free of worries, and who grows old without noticing the passage of the years?"(7.19) How amazing would it be to be this way? Completely carefree and happy-go-lucky? Even though I wouldn't describe Confucius as happy-go-lucky, he was probably the type of student that would cry if he got less than a 4 as a GPA. Or anyway that's the impression Confucius gives me.

Life As I Know It Would Be Over Without Waffles

I think the most superb thing I have ever known is food. More specifically, waffles. They are perfectly warm and crunchy and are not a crepe or a pancake. You can have absolutely anything with them. Honey, Chicken, Berries, Chocolate, Ice Cream, Nutella, Arequipe, cream cheese, bbq sauce just name it. It is the perfect meal. Not only that, it is the easiest to make. It’s perfectly delectable when prepared in the right way. I don’t think I have ever tasted something so good as waffles. No breakfast, lunch, or dinner can be compared to waffles. Not even PIZZA. If you want to start your day in a great way, eat waffles. If you want to end your day in a great day, eat waffles. If you are hungry during the day, eat waffles. In any size, shape, or color, waffles can’t be beaten. They are superb to any other thing in the world. To live we need food, and if the best food is waffles why not eat them every single day?

The Analects Books 4, 5, & 6: A True Gentleman

I loved how these reading have lots of quotes that are so true and I wish the whole world could read them so that they understood. I completely agree with this way of looking at things and I agree with the perception of a "gentleman" or just a person with values and class.




There was this other quote though that I don't necessarily agree with: "The wise take joy in rivers, while the Good take joy in mountains. The wise are active, while the Good are still. The wise are joyful, while the Good are long-lived." (6.23)
It wasn't really specified whether it was better to be Good than to be wise, but from what I've read so far there is an inclination towards Good. I can now define Good people or gentlemen as a person in control of his actions, swallowing harmful pride, remaining noble, and completely respectful towards the rest. Somehow like the following quotes:

"Do not be concerned that no one has heard of you, but rather strive to become a person worthy of being known." (4.15)
When are we really worth of being known? This can be seen in many different ways because this reminded me of reality TV stars that promote themselves in desperate and trashy ways in order to be famous. A notorious example: Speidi. So to strive to be known, known must be in an orderly way and less ludicrous methods used by Z-listers. You can become worthy of being known...in a bad way.


"When you see someone who is worthy, concentrate upon becoming their equal; when you see someone who is unworthy, use this as an opportunity to look within yourself." (4.17)
If you see a good example, follow it. If you see a bad example, stay away from it.

"The gentleman understands rightness, whereas the petty person understands profit." (4.16)
Leaving money matters aside, what is morally right? If it's not, don't take the profit.

"People in ancient times were not eager to speak, because they would be ashamed if their actions did not measure up to their words." (4.22)
I think this is a hidden fear everyone must have. Where will I go to college? Are expectations for me a little too high? Am I doing things right? So people would much rather stay quiet than disappoint or even lie.

"At first, when evaluating people, I would listen to their words and then simply trust that the corresponding conduct would follow. Now when I evaluate people I listen to their words but then closely observe their conduct." (5.10)
Closely related to the quote above, people say many things. Like all the personeros at school that once promised the primary kids a water park in school just so that they would get a vote. They wouldn't know that the chances of that happening are absolutely far-fetched. Actions speak louder than words.

"When native substance overwhelms cultural refinement, the result is a crude rustic. When cultural refinement overwhelms native substance, the result is a foppish pedant. Only when culture and native substance are perfectly mixed and balanced do you have a gentleman."(6.18)
Usually when you think of someone confident and successful in life, you usually think of this person who thinks too highly of himself and thinks he is admired. What we are being told here, is that in order to be admired and appreciated you have to be subtle and being arrogant is not the way. You have to be the complete opposite of arrogance.

Psalms 23, 42, 51, 137

Second Book of Samuel

First Book of Samuel

The Bible: A Reflective Post

The bible has done nothing but fuel my curiosity on history, my current beliefs, the human mind, man’s mind (capitalism’s mind), religion, values, reality, truth, perfection, and basically everything. I tried to see it kind of like a story, something that has nothing to do with me and I was only going to interpret it within it. But that’s impossible since it’s also like any other story and you can relate it to anything you know. The characters in the bible are just like any other characters now; I used to see them as these historical characters followers of God with absolutely no flaws, storytellers that teach us lessons that are always good for us. For some reason I’ve started looking at the church kind of like a sect looking for followers or a company that needs investors. I think I have learnt and gone beyond the interpretations given to me. Instead I can see it with my own eyes and know what it is that I think about it. I’m not saying that the bible was specifically made to brainwash the entire Catholic community or anything, but of course there has to be a bias. I am talking about this in the most hypocritical way since coincidentally my family has started going to church every Sunday and I’m not about to be excluded. So every time I go in and listen to the sermon I don’t know in which perspective to listen to it. I just take the first thought that comes up and go from there. Most of my thoughts have similar thinking as my blog posts on the bible, though.

Job 1-48: "Perfect" and "Upright"?

In many movies, there is always the plot line where the main character curses the day he was born since his life at the moment thoroughly sucks. Then because of destiny or reasons of origin unknown, this main character makes his life wonderful, becomes a hero and gets the girl, and gets the attention. With Job, this happened the other way around. His life was perfect, he was devoted to God, he had his wife and children, and he had it going for him. And then he let the devil in him. In Christianity or at least I've heard in some of the sermons the priests would give at mass, that we have the power to control whether we let the devil in us or not. Not like the real devil, it's not really the character that we see talking to God in Job, "Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it." (1:8). We have the will to decide whether we let the bad things get to us and affect us (not that Job had much of a choice), according to the sermon. But, of course, this is very different in Job. Job was the "perfect" man, why would he need to suffer the consequences? What I learnt was that what the Catholic Church was trying to tell all Catholics was that we all have to suffer eventually, it doesn't matter if we've killed ourselves to get closer to perfection, such as Job.

The Satan or Devil that I am talking about manifests itself in bad things such as jealousy and anger or in more extreme measures murder and crime. I don't believe in the actual form that is the Devil in the bible like I don't believe in God as a bearded old man watching us from atop sitting on his cloud shaped throne. I believe that the Devil is all of the things that we believe are wrong in this world and the spirit of evil that causes the bad things to happen. And God is all of the love and the values that exist in order to keep the world sane and intact from man's greediness. Not that it has worked for most of what exists now, but still. The point is that while in the Bible we are shown all of the representations in actual characters, I interpret it all as symbolism. God is good and Satan is bad. Job is a poor human that has to suffer the consequences.





I found this picture on the Internet and I thought it described religions very accurately, kind of dark humor, but still true. From what I know from the history of Christianity, it starting spreading after the decline of the Roman Empire, what I think was convenient for rulers, emperors, or kings was to say that you absolutely have to suffer simply because you deserve it. The reason they give or gave was because we are born sinners thanks to our loving parents Adam and Eve, the thing forbidden fruit, how God got beyond pissed, etc... The real reason why was because Europe was in total decline during the Early Middle Ages (when Catholicism started gaining popularity and rulers were mostly Catholic) losing trade and population. The division between the rich and the poor was evident and there were more rich than poor. So it was convenient for the rich to say that everyone (most of the population) has to suffer (not the rich) just because they exist. In present day we are told it's because we are sinners. So I found that this phrase, "Catholicism: If S**t happens, I deserve it." describes very accurately what must have been going on in Job's mind when he decided to keep worshipping God after the numerous things that happened to him, including having his whole family killed off. Job was thinking he totally deserved it, even though according to the bible he was “upright” and “perfect”.

Aren’t Catholics encouraged to get as near perfection (nearest to God) as possible? Yes. And isn’t this story telling us that it won’t do us any good since we’ll have to suffer anyway? Yes. So why would we want to be absolutely perfect for God, if in the end he will still punish us for our “original” sin? So I came up with this other idea. Maybe we suffer for others. Maybe we suffer so that others can be good. Maybe all of the people dying in wars and of starvation suffer so that the rest of the world can be OK. Then we are introduced to other ideas and religions and possibilities. “Buddhism: When S**t Happens is it Really S**t?” What if in this life I’m supposed to suffer, but in my next life I’ll be perfectly happy? What does it feel like to be an insect anyway, maybe it’ll be happy? What is happiness? Is it just an illusion that we have to keep ourselves from going insane? Isn’t religion just like happiness, since they are both supposed to keep us from going insane? In the end it’s all OK though, since God gives Job everything he had taken away from him back, so that brings in a whole set of new questions and changes everything. Are we supposed to suffer only for a little while and then we’ll stop suffering? Will God make half of the world hungry just so they know what is feels like to suffer only to later feed them and make the other half of the world suffer afterward? And again, what is happiness? What is perfection? To me it all seems like what we think is perfect. And wouldn’t you have to be a little imperfect in order to be 100% perfect since perfection is everything? With no flaws? But there are so many bad things happening in the world that no one really wonders whether a reason exists for it. It just does because that's the way the world is. A place with good and bad in order to create a balance. Even though mostly bad is not the way to balance things.

Exodus 3-20: Moses

I can always relate the stories of the bible to some movie I watched before or a distant childhood memory. Recently, I've been remembering so much about the stories I had been told that are in the bible and I realize that then I saw them so differently. While before I saw them as some kind of story that had a lesson at the end and that told you what not to do if you wanted God to be in peace with you, now I see them as entertaining stories, actual literature, and characters you can interpret.

With Moses, I was glad how he got the chance to live even though he was a Hebrew, at the highest of society, coming from the lowest. I really wonder how it must have felt growing up in this environment knowing he didn't belong there or getting the feeling that God did not want him there, plus the bonus of knowing that he had Hebrew roots. I must have taken courage and real belief in himself and the power of God to just leave. And not just to leave, but to forget the way he was raised and return to his roots. Just leave Egypt and become some kind of a priest. But all of this is before God asks him to lead the Jews out of Egypt.

This is where the fictional parts of the bible come in that I find extremely hard to believe. You just can't picture a burning bush appearing out of nowhere, starting to emit a voice talking to Moses. But I mean, you can't also picture a snake persuading a woman, but in that case maybe you can picture the snake persuading with his eyes or something like that. It's also like believing angels really did appear or something like that. Does the bible mean all of these things literally or are they supposed to be some kind of symbolism that we need to interpret in order to know how to act? Was the bush intimidating or almighty to Moses if it really did appear to him? This is when Moses asks God something that directly refers to all of my questions: "Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?" (Exodus 3:13) What is the proof that God appeared to him in the form of a burning bush and asked Moses to free the Jews? Won't these people also be wondering whether to believe him or not? Isn't it all a question of faith rather than proof? Because what we call proof is nonexistent in the bible.

The "answer" God gave to Moses, to me, just left the question unanswered. "I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you." (Exodus 3:15) "I am that I am." ...OK. So we know that you are. But how will they know? So God decides to give Moses supernatural powers, giving him the capacity to turn a stick into a snake, and a more impressive feat, infesting Egypt with 10 different plagues. I wonder if it was hard for Moses to do all these things to the land he was raised in? What if the Pharaoh had been someone he's known in his childhood? But I guess these things didn't matter anymore since his loyalty and promises now lay with God. But overall, I really thought Moses' feats were admirable and impressive. A great example to believers and a story that though hard to believe, can be believed in a different way.

Genesis 25-35: Sibling Rivalry

Another sibling rivalry was presented, perhaps similar to Cain and Abel’s when Isaac and Rebekah have Jacob and Esau. The difference this time is that Rebekah has a preference for Jacob and Isaac prefers Esau. But really these two characters can be very much compared to Cain and Abel. I dislike the way in how Jacob asked Esau to sell his birthright. I didn’t really understand the importance Jacob gave to birthright or why Esau claimed to hate his birthright so much. “And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.” (Genesis 25 Verse 33-34) Later I realized that the birthright meant absolutely everything at the time of Isaac’s death. Esau selling his birthright later meant nothing. Having the birthright or being the first-born son meant that one could have Isaac’s blessing. And this blessing was so important because it came from Abraham and before from God. It was the destiny of your heirs. In this I blame Rebekah. If it weren’t for her strong preference for Jacob, Esau maybe would’ve been able to receive his blessing from Isaac, as was due.

We are then told of Jacob’s story and how he had to work for the woman he loved. To me, this was an act of love and I couldn’t understand how when he was cheated on by Rachel’s father, he worked for another seven years. They make seven years seem like such a short time, to me that seems like so much. They also make bearing 6 children as little, when it must be a lot and very painful, indeed. Then when Jacob agrees to marry Leah as well as Rachel; God makes Rachel barren. This must be such bad luck since Isaac first had to marry a woman he didn’t love and then when he got to marry the one he truly loved, she could bear no children. This is really annoying, I just can’t find another word for it. Isaac must be feeling like, “It’s like I have killed myself for fourteen years working for her, and then she can bear me no children!? So basically, if I want to continue my father’s line I have to have children with the woman I don’t really love?” And Rachel wasn’t going to let her sister win, just because she was barren. She let her husband sleep with her maid, except the maid was only the means to achieve an end. She named the children and treated them as her own. So it was like she did have children with Jacob.

Giving birth sounds so casual in the bible. Of course, it is normal to “be fruitful and multiply” in the modern world as well. But it is not a competition to see who has more children. It’s not like we keep a tally or something. In fact, having more children does not help over-population, poverty, and global warming. So “the more the merrier” cannot be applied. I realize why the oldest is always given the most importance and the “birthright”. It’s because there are so many children it’s just easier to pick the first-born.

Rachel and Leah’s father was a greedy man. He left the husband of his daughters completely broke and searching for another land to live in, after 14 years or more of hard work. Unbelievable. But then I remind myself that this must be Jacob’s punishment for stealing Esau’s birthright. “And he said, Is not he rightly named Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing. And he said, Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?” (Genesis 27 Verse 36)

Genesis 17-24

I have to start saying that I think Lot's daughters are absolutely sick. Just insane. They must have been raised to think that being "fruitful and multiplying" must have been the most important thing. I believe it is because it represents power and place in history. The more heirs, the more lineage and the more power for the future generations. Or something like that, anyway. So Lot's daughters were probably resented by Lot because they were girls and maybe often complained about it. The girls, wanting their fathers love, wanted to preserve his lineage. But still, I wonder what the heck was going on in their heads when they decided to sleep with their father. I mean, they must have known that he would have thought it was wrong since they had to get him drunk. And it was their father. I feel bad for Lot's wife that turned into a pillar of salt. This gets me thinking about male power and it is so frequent in the bible. In fact, I don't think we've read yet about a woman being more powerful or controlling than a man. I feel so sorry for these girls, how they were taught that being "fruitful" is so vital, that sleeping with your own father is OK.

Again, we are presented with another odd/repulsive idea. Abraham said that Sarah was his sister. And then he got angry because Abimelech king of Gerar slept with Sarah. I don't understand what the point was. Why couldn't he have said that Sarah was his wife? I mean, would it have made a significant difference? Maybe a fight wouldn't have taken place. But then, I understood. "And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife." (Gen.20 Verse 12) So what Abraham meant, was that we are all brothers and sisters. Or that is what I understood. Here I remembered my countless times at mass when the priest exclaims, "Welcome brothers and sisters!" So maybe that is what Abraham meant when he referred to Sarah as his sister?

So Sarah could finally bear a child after all those years of suffering and gave birth to Isaac. Sadly Ishmael was completely neglected afterward. He became the other son, an illegitimate one. In this sad story, I see a little evil in Sarah. First she is very glad to let her maid sleep with her husband as she can't conceive, but when she is able to, Ishmael is completely forgotten? This reminds me again of when I was a child reading biblical stories for children. When I read this one and Ishmael was like entirely skipped and somehow we are now talking about Abraham sacrificing his only son with Sarah to God. "Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest..." (Gen.22 Verse 2)I wondered, and what happened to the other son? What if Ishmael and Isaac had grown up together? Would there still be some kind of resentment as there was? Would this have changed the relationship between Abraham, Hagan, and Sarah? But again, it was society. It simply would have been wrong of Abraham to treat Ishmael as an equal when he wasn't the son of his only wife, but the son of a servant, that was the only choice Abraham had if he wanted to continue his lineage.

But still, Abraham was willing to sacrifice his "only" son for God. He was about to do it when he stopped. I really do not think this is a very good lesson for humanity. That we could sacrifice anything and everything for a superior being. If we are here, together, interacting, shouldn't we be able to be in peace with each other? If it is something as important as your only son, why sacrifice it? If it is good why leave it? It is a sacrifice, but why would God want to create suffering instead of diminishing it?

Genesis 10-16

These chapters made me understand the reasons why man would follow God and why it makes sense for him to. God made promises. One notable example was when Abram had to drag his family all around just to find the land that God had asked him to find. The reason why he is doing this is because God is promising him protection and safety, which had him, convinced. "And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."(Chapter 12 Verse 2)
What kind of a man would deny his family the delight to be blessed? To lose all of your enemies? Why reject the protection of a more superior being? A man would rather take a chance at faith and have the possibility of stopping his suffering or making his quality of life better than the one he currently has.

Another matter that got my attention was fertility and how it is absolutely necessary for future generations. To be able to continue spreading religion, Abram had a huge amount of children, even though his wife, Sarai, was not able to have more. I really thought the according to Christian beliefs, a relationship has to be completely monogamous. But apparently, in order for Abram to continue his Christian bloodline, he was completely allowed to cheat on Sarai. I clearly remember seeing an adaptation of Abram's story on some kind of documentary and they showed Abram as a butt-hole that cheated on his poor wife that wasn't to blame for her infertility. But then later they showed Sarai taking revenge on the woman that carried Abram’s children. It was stated that “Sarai was barren; she had no child.” (Chapter 11 Verse 30)

But actually, Sarai understood Abram’s needs and gave him her slave so that he could reproduce and “multiply exceedingly.” She supported Abram’s “infidelity”. What I cannot understand is how God approved of this, only to later grant Sarai fertility at 90 years old, and cause further problems that were sure to come in future generations.

Genesis 3-9

When Eve was tempted to eat from the tree and God stated that "I [He] 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", the feminist in me completely freaked out and felt insulted by this. Is the bible a main reason why women suffered for years (some still do) for being considered less than men, being tied to household chores and staying uneducated? Why was Eve the one to be tempted by the snake? Why couldn't it have been Adam? The bible must have been a major influence in the world and it must have contributed to a woman's place in society. Being less than man for being tempted by a snake and than tempting her husband. As if all women were so interested. I am surprised by the way God, the merciful, would treat a woman. But also, she had the responsibility of being the first woman ever, so maybe God had the right to begrudge her for screwing up. And what about the snake? Was the snake ever punished? Or did it just escape and hide back in the tree like cartoon villains do? I don't think people treated snakes badly in the middle ages because of what the bible said (even though they probably were mistreated, their ghastly appearance is enough).

Adam and Eve, commit sin after sin, what kind of an example are they to humanity? That if we make mistakes we'll end up like them? We are like this because of them. Their next mistake was Cain. They must have been telling themselves every day, "Why couldn't Cain have been like Abel, hard-working and friends with God?". That probably made Cain bitter. But he repented and generations of Adams and Eves followed until we got to Noah.

I simply cannot understand the Bible sometimes. In my way of seeing things, you can't just kill humanity because there was some "evil" in it. There was bound to be. Adam and Eve, the tree, the snake, remember? But then, suddenly, God found the perfect man? So it was all going according to plan with Noah. But what I don't understand is, if God destroyed man, wasn't it to remove evil from the world? There is plenty of evil, Noah probably had evil in him. I wonder if it is odd that all of this makes no sense to me and I don't find all of the lessons here to be good lessons. I don't believe humanity can reach perfection. Imperfections are a part of what man is. Don't you need imperfection to be absolutely perfect, too? Well, at least it "grieved him at his heart."

Genesis 1-2

I was already familiar with this text when I read the King James version. Except this time I payed attention to other details that I wouldn't have noticed before. I think my way of seeing the bible has changed a lot since the last time I'd read it which was in 7th grade. This time, I tried to read it not as a Catholic reading her guidebook but like someone interpreting the text, religious affiliation irrelevant.

Genesis 1 was like an order of they way things happened, sort of stating the facts. Clearly stating that God is the creator and the almighty. I noticed that some lines often ended with "and God saw that it was good." As if God sought for his own approval and immediately admired his work. Something else that it might be is that it was all "good", until Adam and Eve ruined it all by eating fruit from the tree of Eden, that when God specifically asked them not to. So things were no longer good, perhaps now they are bad, or just not so good.

I look forward to reading the rest of the story with this different point of view and interpreting other things I might have not noticed before.

Baucis and Philemon

I had already heard this story before and I think it was when I was about 7 years old. My grandmother told this story one night after I fought with one of my sisters because she refused to give me a piece of her gum if I didn't give her a piece of my gum. Basically, this is what Baucis and Philemon is about.

I think that maybe the Gods subconsciously wanted to know how people treated each other knowing that they would receive nothing in return from the other person. But I think that if humans would have tried this test on the Gods they would have found that the Gods would not take pity on them. I see them as this race that thinks themselves superior and almighty, and maybe not aware that they also have their own imperfections. But at the same time, they reward the humans that contradict them or prove them wrong with their actions by showing them good.

Zeus and Hermes disguised as poor people that needed a place to stay, so the person helping them out would have to be a saint. Hermes was about to give up before they knocked on Baucis and Philemon's door. But Baucis and Philemon proved that there are good people, even if there are few. In this song, Alanis Morisette states that she will expect nothing in return for her good actions, like Baucis and Philemon.





Anyway, the lesson my grandmother was trying to give my sister and I, was that we should give, without expecting anything in return (and then maybe life will reward you later like it did for Baucis and Philemon). But still, if you know you will get rewarded you will obviously make a better effort or treat everybody nicely no matter how poor they are.

Phaeton

After reading this version of Phaeton's story, I found Dryden's to be a lot more descriptive and serious rather than Zimmerman's hilarious take on it. She told it in very modern way, depicting the typical neglected teenager that wants a car. "Where have you been all my life, Dad? It's my turn. Hand it over!" (66) So the dad (Apollo) naturally feels really bad about abandoning his son, so agrees to give him the keys, but still assumes a degree of fatherly responsibility by warning him. Which is a bit hypocritical since not only he left him, but he is risking his son's life by giving him the keys, but then again, why would he care? Anyways, I think I enjoyed reading both of them, but I noticed that they were very different. Dryden's was so poetic and descriptive, you could see everything happening in your head precisely as it was told. It was a very detailed expression of how Phaeton was going to reach the sun and all the struggles he went through, and how everything exploded in the end. While in this version, Phaeton doesn't actually go on a journey for his "car
, he just talks about his problem to a therapist who tells him all these ideas he's been having are delusions. "It has been said that the myth is a public dream, dreams are private myths." (67) So basically, Phaeton's journey to the sun in Zimmerman's adaptation was very concrete and sarcastic. Like a bitter teenager who was forced to visit the therapist for bad behavior (making it "crash" and "chaos") towards his so-called father and doesn't really care for the therapist's opinion.

Pomona and Vertumnus

Reading this love story, I started to think about love and how there are so many kinds of love and so many emotions you must go through in love. For example, Pomona seemed to be completely unaware of Vertumnus's obvious infatuation for her. He would do anything to try and catch her attention and he would even change his real self in order to become someone that he thought would impress Pomona. So at first, you think of Vertumnus as a lovesick fool whose love for Pomona is sadly unrequited. Pomona, so unperturbed and oblivious, it was as if she simply did not care for Vertumnus's attempts. But how could she not? He was obviously parading himself in front of her. Was she blind or something? No, the story is just trying to tell us that in order that you can find your one and true love, you have to be yourself. Even if you think yourself is not good enough or attractive for the one you are trying to impress, then that means it was not meant to be. Or that's the message I thought it was trying to send.
But, still, I think Vertumnus was making a sacrifice and was showing his devotion to Pomona by demonstrating that he would become anybody if that meant he could be with her. So maybe you can become someone else for the person you love just because you love them. But that would mean a complete loss of identity, independence, and self-respect for yourself. But as I mentioned before, when in love, Vertumnus was a fool. So he foolishly thought he would impress a girl as far within reach as Pomona by trying to be anyone else except himself, experimenting which one would be the one she preferred. Which was wrong of him, he only had to be Vertumnus, the lovesick fool, minus the costumes.

From some the images I looked at of Cupid and Psyche, in comparison to Pomona and Vertumnus, the roles seemed to be reversed. Cupid seemed to be the one leaving Psyche hanging.
Instead of the woman being the one chased after, Psyche seemed to chase for Cupid.
But in others, Cupid seems to adore Psyche just as much as Vertumnus adored Pomona.

For example, in this one above, Cupid is gazing adoringly at Psyche, and Psyche is completely oblivious to this, apparently sleeping, as Pomona was when Vertumnus tried to impress her with his disguises.

I did a little more research on the story behind the images of Cupid and Psyche and found out my interpretations were absolutely wrong. Turns out, Cupid is only gazing at Psyche before he uses his golden arrows on her as a favor to his mother, who was jealous of Psyche's beauty. Cupid finds Psyche too beautiful, falling in love with her and decides not to use his arrows. Venus, Cupid's mother, punished Psyche by placing a curse upon her that would keep her from ever finding a suitable husband. I think this myth is absolutely different to Pomona and Vertumnus, and the only similarity I can find is that they're both kind of love stories.

Erysichthon

Erysichthon thought himself much better than the gods, so the gods punished him by inflicting hunger upon him. I was surprised by this method of punishment, I never would have expected it to be so painful for him. I was amazed at all he did just to keep the hunger away, even selling his own mother. There were some parts in this reading that I didn't get towards the ending.

"[Ceres comes over to Erysichthon with a silver tray holding a plate, a large fork and knife, and a rosebud in a vase. She sets it down on the deck.] ... [Erysichthon goes to the tray takes off his shoe, places his own foot on the plate, and raises the knife and fork.]" (40)

I don't understand what was meant by this, why did Erysichthon want to eat his own foot? Does that mean it would stop the hunger?

I guess it was to demonstrate that only by destroying himself he would finally be able to stop the hunger, which means that it would never stop. Or maybe he would even sacrifice himself, or a part of himself in order to stop the hunger.

Alcyone & Ceyx

I was very touched by this story and I thought it was very, very good. I just really liked it. But maybe that's just because I enjoy all love stories, I don't even care if they have a happy ending. Alcyone and Ceyx did not necessarily have a happy ending. Ceyx dies and Alcyone is left alone grieving for her lost love. But still, everything that happens in the beginning and the middle is enthralling. I thought the descriptions of how Ceyx's voyage was ruined by Poseidon was very interesting. "But Poseidon and his Henchman had arrived. The rest was one enormous green catastrophe."(23) It was very concrete because of course the rest is acting, but to say that "the rest was one enormous green catastrophe" and leaving it at that was not what I expected.

I think Ceyx mainly took part in this voyage to prove his capability and masculinity to his colleagues and to his wife, that he loved so much. He was so intent on doing this that he was risking the loss of this love. He neglected to be "stranded on shore, afraid, domesticated, diminished, a kind of lap dog." In society, (perhaps now it is a little bit different since some women are the heads of households) men are the ones supposed to be the bravest and the providers of the family. Maybe because since the beginning of time, when men were the ones capable of hunting and gathering, later it simply became instinct and proper in society when the man did what was manly: provide for family and leave the household to the women. Ceyx simply didn't think it was right if he had the "chance" to fight, to let it pass and look like a coward, he would much rather take on this opportunity and behave like a "man", something that maybe he thought he had lost since falling in love or marrying Alcyone. On the other hand, Alcyone is playing the part of the doting wife and later, grieving widow. She lives for Ceyx, depends on Ceyx, would be nothing without Ceyx, etc. This woman depends a lot more on the man than the man on her. After all, it was Ceyx who left Alcyone, no matter in what circumstances.

As I've noticed in The Iliad and other greek mythology stories, the gods are the ones manipulating and creating chaos throughout the whole story. In fact, they probably have a role in all the stories, messing with the humans' business and changing the outcomes of things, leaving the humans in either a blissful state (with possible bad consequences) or in a very miserable state (just because).

Right now, I am enjoying Mary Zimmerman's Metamorphoses a lot, definitely a lot more than Ovid's emotional latin.

Metamorphoses

I was very, very confused by this. Just plain confused. It was in latin.

But from what I got, I understood this as being some kind of creation, the creation of the universe or simply Earth, in which man was involved. It also seems like they said some things in latin and then in english as though translated. But mostly, I was just confused. It also was weird when the narrator in a really deep and emotional voice, said it all in latin and then afterwards (just so the listener could actually understand what he was saying) repeated what he said before in english, devoid of emotion.

Conclusion to Bhagavad-Gita

When I started reading Bhagavad-Gita, I was very much annoyed at Krishna, and I thought Arjuna was a very loyal character by insisting that he did not want to fight in the war. I admired him for knowing it was wrong. I expected him to stand up for his belief and not let himself be convinced by Krishna. But then as we continued reading the teachings and understanding them, I actually agreed with Krishna in some points and some of the values he talked about, I could totally get them and maybe apply them. As long as I didn't remember that it was all about convincing Arjuna of his wisdom, therefore that he should fight in war. For example, one of the points Krishna talked about that I really liked was this one:
“But when a man finds delight
within himself and feels inner joy,
and pure contentment in himself,
there is nothing more to be done.” (45)
But right after he said this, he started talking about action and how we should be “detached” from everything. I don't believe you should be detached. In fact, I think that to understand ourselves and our surroundings better, we should actually attach ourselves to matters or issues. But in general, I think that with Bhagavad-Gita I learnt a lot about how a different culture might view war, humanity, and values in comparison to how we view war, humanity, and values. I can't say I agreed with this book in all that it stated, but I saw a different perspective that was definitely interesting. When Arjuna said, "Krishna, my delusion is destroyed, and by your grace I have regained memory; I stand here, my doubt dispelled, ready to act on your words.”(145), I thought it wasn't necessarily that Arjuna was going to fight in the war but rather that he is not in doubt anymore about what he should do and is doing what he thinks is right according to Krishna's teachings. I think all that Krishna said left options open for Arjuna.

Bhagavad-Gita: Teachings 17 & 18

I just couldn't agree with some of the sins that were talked about by Krishna in teaching 17. That passionate men "crave foods that are bitter, sour, salty, hot, pungent, harsh, and burning, causing pain, grief, and sickness." (132) In my opinion of the word passionate, passion is more like a person who lives life to its fullest. But maybe in Bhagavad-Gita, the word passion meant something else. According to the dictionary here is the definition.

passion: a strong and barely controllable emotion.

So now I understand it a lot better. What was meant by passionate men, was that men were incapable of controlling their emotions and desire for desires. In this case desire is sin. But then this other quote left me confused, "Wavering and unstable, performed with hypocrisy, to gain respect, honor, and worship, that penance is called passionate." So I looked up passionate and here it is:

passionate: showing or caused by strong feelings or a strong belief.

"The joy that is passionate

at first seems like ambrosia

when senses encounter sense objects,

but in the end it is like poison."

(140)

Why would being passionate be a penance? But I'll just set that thought aside because I'm thinking beyond it a little too much.

I really liked Krishna's thoughts on right and wrong, they just make sense. "When one fails to discern sacred duty from chaos, right acts from wrong, understanding is passionate." (139) What I understood from this is that if you are able to understand, comprehend, or feel bad for a person who has not been able to know what is right and what is wrong, and goes the wrong way, you are being understanding. By being understanding you are being passionate, you are not in control of your emotions and therefore you have lost all discipline. Krishna is definitely not in favor of passion or any feeling that describes you as out of control. You have to be in control of yourself at all times.

"When it sustains acts of mind, breath, and senses through discipline without wavering, resolve is lucid."(140) Resolving would be making the absolute right decision, and it is lucid, right there in front of you, so it wouldn't make sense to go the wrong way and lose your control, according to Krishna.

I found the comparison between lucidity and passionate to be very interesting and it is definitely something you can see in humanity: "The joy of lucidity at first seems like poison but is in the end like ambrosia, from the calm of self-understanding. The joy that is passionate at first seems like ambrosia when senses encounter sense objects, but in the end it is like poison."(140) I can see lucidity as reality itself. When we are not able to face reality (which might be good or bad) so we resort to passion, which might be going the other way around and avoiding reality. Lucidity is right there clear for us to see, while passion is just something we might create to distract us from it.

I was a bit disappointed when I realized that Arjuna will probably fight in battle after all Krishna told him. "Krishna, my delusion is destroyed, and by your grace I have regained memory; I stand here, my doubt dispelled, ready to act on your words." (145) Arjuna is now in control of himself and has let the passion for what he believed in go, he is now facing reality, and facing the fact that Krishna was right.

Bhagavad-Gita: Teachings 11 & 15

In teaching 11, Arjuna seems to have been absolutely fascinated by Krishna:

"Arjuna saw all the universe

in its many ways and parts,

standing as one in the body

of the god of gods.

Then filled with amazement,

his hair bristling on his flesh,

Arjuna bowed his head to the god,

joined his hands in homage, and spoke.

I see the gods in your body, O God...

I see your boundless form

everywhere,

the countless arms,

bellies, mouths, and eyes;

Lord of All,

I see no end,

or middle or beginning

to your totality."

(page 99)

I think that this Arjuna, the one speaking with so devotion to Krishna, now, is not the same Arjuna we saw in the first teachings. Arjuna in the first teachings was so unsure of who he was and what he wanted, and whether what he thought was good, really was. After Krishna's speeches, answering all of his questions, Arjuna seems to have understood it. The totality. No insecurities or doubts, just totality. Arjuna is simply leaving behind all of his doubts and putting all of his trust in Krishna. But still, he is not absolutely sure, which shows that Krishna hasn't convinced him completely.

"Hearing Krishna's words,

Arjuna trembled

under his crown,

and he joined his hands

in reverent homage;

terrified of his fear,

he bowed to Krishna

and stammered in reply."

(page 104)

When Krishna talked about the true spirit of man in the 15th teaching I found this quote interesting:

"Without pride or delusion,

the fault of attachment overcome,

intent on the self within,

their desires extinguished,

freed from dualities,

from joy and suffering,

undeluded men

reach that realm beyond change."

(page 124)

Is he saying that to reach the realm beyond change you have to feel nothing at all? It is like saying you can't feel joy even though it feels good and you can't have suffering even though it feels bad. No punishment or reward. Just simple detachment and action.

Bhagavad-Gita: Teachings 7-9

In these teachings I recognized various Buddhist principles that Krishna talked about.

"One man among thousands

strives for successes,

and of the few who are successful,

a rare one knows my reality."

(page 73)

Last semester, a friend's dad (who is a buddhist) came to school to talk about buddhism and he mentioned enlightenment. He said that very rarely a buddhist will achieve reaching enlightenment, and when you have, it is because you have reached a state of complete nirvana (free from suffering and rebirth). Buddhists strive to reach this point, but few ever do. What Krishna called eternal unmanifest existence ("...what men call the highest way, the goal from which they do not return; this highest realm is mine.") is what I related to Buddhist Enlightenment. Later, Lord Krishna was saying was that he was beyond man, he was the one men had to thank for their self-discipline and knowledge. Another buddhist idea I noticed was that Krishna stated Arjuna had to rid himself of desires.

"I am the taste in water Arjuna,

the light in the moon and sun,

OM resonant in all sacred lore,

the sound in space, valor in men."

(page 74)

"Disciplined through practice,

his reason never straying,

meditating, one reaches

the supreme divine spirit of man."

(page 80)

Meditation:

In the eighth teaching, I found the concept of the infinite spirit to be really interesting. Like a being that lives in you forever, just that you change bodies. Like reincarnation.

"A man who dies remembering me

at the time of death enters my being

when he is freed from his body;

of this there is no doubt.

Whatever being he remembers

when he abandons the body at death,

he enters, Arjuna,

always existing in that being."

(pages 79-80)

Krishna talks about reincarnation, calling it a cycle you have to go through and through until you've reached perfection.

"Without faith in sacred duty,

men fail to reach me, Arjuna;

they return to the cycle

of death and rebirth."

(page 85)

He stated many times how he was the leader, the father, and the lord of the universe. When Krishna proceeded to talk about this, blaming men for thinking themselves smarter and bigger than the God, I was reminded of Catholicism (or at least what my grandmother taught me about it). How some catholics despised atheists, calling them fools that think themselves higher than God because they think they can outsmart him by proving he does not exist. I just thought that in Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna just like God, does not want to be outsmarted.

"I am the enjoyer

and the lord of all sacrifices;

they do not know me in reality,

and so they fail."

(page 88)

Bhagavad-Gita: 3rd-5th Teachings

In these teachings, I saw Lord Krishna focusing on action and inaction, as a way to successfully convince Arjuna to fight in battle. I thought Lord Krishna's first ideas of actions and inactions in the 3rd teaching were very interesting and contradictory. Considering that buddhism has aspects of hinduism in it, and this book is hindi. In buddhism one would never be encouraged to fight, quite the opposite really.

(page 45)

What I interpreted from this reading, was that sacrifice, was the ability to detach yourself completely, and act from what the spirit of prayer showed you. And absolutely infinite.

(page 46)

Without action, society would be disorderly. This is only the start of Lord Krishna's persuading techniques, first it all seems completely innocent and with no harm, except the point he is trying to come across with is that Arjuna should fight in the war and that it is completely ok for him to kill people. But yes, it is a different culture and we are in different times. I picture inaction like a person that can let go completely and feel free to follow their heart or their feelings while an active person is absolutely detached and impersonal and shows no emotion towards situations. If an active person were to kill someone, he wouldn't care, it wouldn't be in him. While an inactive person would not consider murder as the right thing to do (what Arjuna is facing right now) and feels the person's death.

(page 62)

In this passage right here is what I previously explained, an active person will not love or hate, the only joy or feeling he will find is in himself. The inner self should not be exposed to the rest of the world, it is only his. And it is supposedly "inexhaustible."

Ignorance in this matter is unacceptable so once you have the knowledge, that as I saw it, was that you were supposed to be active rather than inactive, you are illuminated.

Bhagavad-Gita: Second Teaching

"You grieve for those beyond grief,

and you speak words of insight;

but learned men do not grieve

for the dead or the living.

Never have I not existed,

nor you, nor these kings;

and never in the future

shall we cease to exist.

...

Contacts with matter make us feel

heat and cold, pleasure and pain.

Arjuna, you must learn to endure

fleeting things–they come and go!"

(page 33)

Arjuna is very odd to me. A man that is there to fight in war, but doesn't wish to do so. He does not see war as the way out or the way in. You never see in bloody war movies or books someone who is there to fight and his purpose is to fight, but he is completely opposed to fighting. Arjuna seems to regret having this position, and feels bad for all the death that occurs during wars. The quote above (which was said by Lord Krishna) is said to inspire Arjuna to simply move on! That it won't make a difference, that you live and you die, and that is the way it is.

"Death is certain for anyone born,

and birth is certain for the dead;

since the cycle is inevitable,

you have no cause to grieve!"

(page 35)

Lord Krishna slowly manipulates his own words turning them into something else. Not only should Arjuna not grieve the deaths of those he kills, but it is his duty to kill them! And if he doesn't accomplish his duties, he will be shameful. But of course, all of this makes perfect sense. And all of this will make Arjuna overcome his fears. Arjuna seems fascinated by this speech, and he seems like a character that doesn't know what he should do or who he should be, all he knows is he does not agree with war. He wants to know what to be. Krishna answers that he should give up his desires and overcome his fears and of course, his insight is sure.

"Krishna, what defines a man

deep in contemplation whose insight

and thoughts are sure? How would he speak?

How would he sit? How would he move?"

(page 39)

Bhagavad-Gita: First Teaching

In teaching I was reminded of some parts of The Iliad, when they described the ships, where they came from, and who were the leaders and their titles when they came to fight against the trojans. Here, the names of the warriors are stated, their place in their families and a quality that made them stand out:

In fact, most of the descriptions of war are very similar to The Iliad's. What most interested me where the painful descriptions of what it would mean to proceed with the war. Arjuna said this like he meant it, and maybe if Agamemnon or Achilles would have seen this, and seen that it made so much sense, things in The Iliad would have turned out very differently. Who knows, maybe Achilles wouldn't have killed Hector and Paris wouldn't have hit Achilles's heel. But then, most of The Iliad was Achilles's anger and wrath, and nothing could stop this, not even death. The war seems to be among family members and friends.

"Krishna, I see my kinsmen

gathered here, wanting war.

My limbs sink,

my mouth is parched,

my body trembles,

the hair bristles on my flesh.

The magic bow slips from my hand, my skin burns,

I cannot stand still,

my mind reels.

I see omens of chaos,

Krishna; I see no good

in killing my kinsmen in battle.

Krishna, I seek no victory,

or kingship or pleasures.

What use to us are kingship.

delights, or life itself?

We sought kingship, delights,

and pleasures for the sake of those

assembled to abandon their lives

and fortunes in battle."

(page 27)