End of Luke

Gospel of Luke 17-24

The rest of the story was pretty much the same as that of the Gospel according to Mark, except for maybe the story of Zacchaeus, a rich man, who came to repent, and th last meal of Jesus and his disciples.

The rest of the story was, really, the same (except for the fact that the wording was different between the gospels). Judas betrays Jesus, Jesus gets crucified, and he dies.

In the Gospel according to Mark, the last words of Jesus were:
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Gospel of Mark 15:34)
This suggested that Jesus didn't exactly want to die, even though it was sort of his mission. In contrast, the last quote of the Gospel according to Luke was somewhat different.
"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." (Gospel of Luke 23:46)

Last post, I said something about how the Gospel according to Luke portrayed Jesus' character as more noble. This can also be seen in the last thing Jesus said before he died. Here, he sounds calm and as if he had done all that he was supposed to do. It's funny how each gospel has a different version of Jesus' character.

Then Jesus resurrects, then flies up to heaven.


The gospels were pretty fun to read. It was also fun to see the differences and similarities between the two gospels I read, and how it carried much more meaning than how much I thought it had before reading it.

Noble-er Jesus

Gospel of Luke 9-16

The miracles of Jesus continue.

There were many things different from the Gospel according to Mark as I read. It didn't mention the death of John the Baptizer, and it didn't mention Jesus walking on water either. The Gospel according to Luke also had some of it's own unique short stories, such as the one where a lawyer asks Jesus of how to have eternal life.

Other than these stories, most were pretty much the same as that of the Gospel of Mark. Oh, forgot one thing. The Gospel of Luke also included the Lord's Prayer.

The part that I liked the most of this particular part of the gospel that I read was the metaphor Jesus made about the lost sheep.

"What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it,he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together hisfriends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance." (Gospel of Luke 15:4-7)

From here, I saw that the Gospel according to Luke tried to make Jesus a more 'noble' character. He was made into someone who actually looks like he is here to fulfil his mission (unlike the Gospel according to Mark, where Jesus shows signs that he maybe didn't actually want to be who he was, shown by the quote "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Gospel of Mark 15:34) )

In my personal opinion, the Gospel of Luke seems more fun that the Gospel of Mark. It's just me.

Same Guy, Different Story?

Gospel of Luke 1-8

Luke. I am your father.

Just kidding. Not that Luke.
I started reading the Gospel according to Luke.

This gospel started with the story of how John (the baptizer) was born. Then, unlike the Gospel of Mark, talks about how Joseph and Maria came together, and how Jesus was born. It shows a short bit of his childhood. It talks about how John baptizes Jesus.

Time out here. Supposedly, John didn't know about Jesus.
"And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not; John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." (Gospel of Luke 3:15,16)
From here, you can infer that John didn't actually know that Jesus existed until John baptized him. If so, how did he find out Jesus was who he was at first glance? Did God tell him? If so why is it not said in the text? I don't know.

The Gospel according to Luke didn't have the battle between Jesus and Satan. Here I thought: Why are all the gospels different from each other? Why couldn't they have just have had one master gospel? Well, whatever. Many means more credible.


The gospel told the story on Jesus collecting his disciples, and performing miracles, some which I haven't seen before. There was one where Jesus made this 'young man' come back to life:
"Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he delivered him to his mother." (Gospel of Luke 7:14,15)

The Gospel of Luke is indeed different from that of Mark in its context. I hope it gets more interesting.

The End of Mark

Gospel of Mark 9-16

Here’s the rest of the Gospel of Mark.

The Gospel of Mark has sort of taken a turn. Instead of stories of Jesus performing miracles in the middle of nowhere, it now talks more about people testing Jesus and Jesus teaching people of the right way.

In this point of the story, Jesus enters Jerusalem, where the people greet him and ask him for help. It’s too bad that this won’t last too long, since we all know what happens to Jesus. You know what would be cool? Terminator going back in time to save Jesus.

As I saw Jesus answer every question/test the people gave him, I thought ‘Wow, this guy sure knows how to stay out of trouble’. Every time Jesus said something to someone else about what they should do and stuff like that, I was like ‘Yeah, that is true’, or something like that.

Look at this quote Jesus said to his disciples when they see a poor widow put in all her money in the treasury:
“Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.” (Gospel of Mark 12:43,44)

I totally agree with this quote. Think about it. If you are Bill Gates and you donate one million dollars to an orphanage, it would actually cost less than a poor person donating that much money. You know what I mean.

From here, the story is known by most ‘somewhat knowledgeable people’. Judas betrays Jesus, but then suicides. Jesus is crucified, but then reincarnated in three days.


Yay. I finished the gospel. This was actually more interesting than some other things I have read, one of them being ‘The Analects’.

So yeah. Cool. I’ll be starting a new gospel next week.

Miraculous Jesus

Gospel of Mark 5-8

Still reading.
I started wondering why it's called the Gospel of MARK. Is that the name of the person who wrote this? I don't know, and I'm too lazy too go to Wikipedia.


In these chapters, Jesus keeps performing miracles, some of them which we know very well, such as walking on water. Another was multiplying five loaves and two fish (one basket) into twelve baskets in the end after everyone had eaten. The people start following him (while some don't believe in him). Jesus then predicts that he will die and revive in three days.

This part of the Gospel of Mark is, I believe, very well known to people. Yet, reading it from the original (well, not really, since the King James Bible is a translation) piece was somewhat unique.

Anyways, Peter doesn't accept Jesus' prediction. Jesus then replies to him. Here's what I thought was interesting:
"Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men." (Gospel of Mark 8:33)
It's funny how just before Peter rejects what Jesus says, he said something that Jesus liked. Right afterwards, Jesus addresses Peter as Satan. Haha. Is it because the bad/evil thoughts of Satan are inside Peter? Something like that? If so, Satan can make people do anything he wants. Does he have as much power as God? (Of course not, but I'm just saying)

But then remember Job from before? If Satan wanted Job to question/insult God, he could have done it right? Why didn't he?

Oh, and I still have the unanswered question of 'Who is Satan anyways?' I still don't know how he came to be. Whoops, I'm getting off topic.

Anyways, everything's cool until now.
Hopefully, the text will become fun-er.

People, Meet Jesus

Gospel of Mark 1-4

Back to the Bible. Well, now it's the New Testament. What does that mean? Jesus, that's what it is.

The Gospel of Mark starts from when Jesus is already an adult. As in, it doesn't include the birth of Jesus, his childhood, and that kind of stuff. That information was, if memory serves, in the Gospel of Matthew.

John baptizes Jesus with water, and the Holy Spirit appears and acknowledges him as his son. Satan tests Jesus, and Jesus wins, of course. Jesus gathers his disciples, the first ones being Simon and Andrew. In Galilee, Jesus cures many people and performs miracles.

That's pretty much it, said in a few words.

This part emphasizes the fact that Jesus was a good miracle-performer. Jesus does it with a 'this-is-nothing I-can-do-anything' manner of way. When Jesus calms down the sea and the wind on the boat with his disciples, he wasn't all proud, saying 'Oh, I calmed down the water and wind. Ain't I cool?' He rather says it in a very noble God-ish way:
"Why are ye so fearful? How is it that ye have no faith?" (Gospel of Mark 4:40)

Then all the disciples are like 'What the fudge? Who is this guy to make the sea and wind obey him?'

Well, I'm just getting started, so let's hope there's much more fun events involving Jesus ahead of us.

No More Tao is Not Tao

Tao Te Ching 48-81

No, I don't get the title either.
SO SHUT UP!

Sorry about that.
I have finished the Tao Te Ching. Hm. It was shorter than I expected it to be. After all, it is the second most printed book, the first bring the Bible. A few last comments before I really finish the Tao Te Ching.

The book was nice. It really showed me what Daoism was, unlike Confucius, who left me confused. Even as I finished reading the book, it kept emphasizing balance. Even if it wouldn't be considered 'balanced', there were always at least two sentences that complimented each other, helped understand the other, and stuff like that. Look at the following quote for example.

"Truthful words are not beautiful.

Beautiful words are not truthful.

Good men do not argue.
Those who argue are not good.

Those who know are not learned.

The learned do not know." (Tao Te Ching 81)

The quote was from the last page of the book. Even until the end of the text, it had to be balance-ish, didn't it? Well, it was cool. Actually, this was one of the quotes that I liked. I quite agree with what it says here, maybe except for where it says that the learned don't know. It's so true that true words are not pretty. Reality is harsh. Yup. That, it is. I also thought that arguing too much isn't that good either, unlike my English teacher, who insists on teaching us how to argue. Well, it contradicts the book. I'm not sure if the last two lines have some kind of 'secret meaning' or something, because to me, it doesn't make sense.

Speaking of balance, look at this photo!

It's the picture of the Andromeda Galaxy, taken by NASA.
When I see pictures like this, I sometimes do think that nature is full of balance. I mean look at that! It's balance-ish. Haha, sorry. I don't have a good word to explain that. I'm just saying.

Tao Te Ching. The book of Daoism.
Very cool, short, not that bad to read.
NEVER READING IT AGAIN, thank you very much.

More Tao

Tao Te Ching 29-47

Nnnnnnggghhh. I'm bored of this book now. I guess I'm not much of a teaching reading guy. Nevertheless, the reading must go on.

This quote (quoteS, actually) caught my eye:
"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." (Tao Te Ching 30)

I like how it repeats. It's simple, yet it carries a lot of meaning.
This is practically saying that you shouldn't show off (I don't know what word to use) when you achieve things. I agree with this, except for a bit: where it says 'But never be proud'. I personally think we should be proud of the things we do. What did the author of this book want us to be, low self-esteemed Asians? If that was his intention, I won't become one.


"For one gains by losing
And loses by gaining." (Tao Te Ching 42)
This quote also made me think. It made me think about how gaining would be bad in the long run. The conclusion I got was that people get greedy and stuff. In the end, losing is better than gaining. But according to this quote, if you lose, you gain. When you gain, you will lose. It makes a cycle! Never mind. Stupid brain trying to work out logic.

He Who Follows the Tao

Tao Te Ching 13-28

Still reading the Tao Te Ching. Yay.

The book isn't bad. Although it's just teachings and stuff, it's not all that boring. I think it's because the text is divided up into very short sections. We go to the next part before getting bored. Something like that. I don't know. I'm just saying.

I noticed that the text kept saying something that was either obvious, or was the same thing that was stated. What do I mean? Look at the following quote:
"He who follows the Tao
Is at one with the Tao.
He who is virtuous
Experiences Virtue.
He who loses the way
Is lost." (Tao Te Ching 23)

Yeah. It's obvious someone who is virtuous experiences virtue.
This wasn't the only part of the book that said something like that. The book is full of those things. Stuff like 'He who is **** is ****'.


I found a quote that I quite agree with.
"He who does not trust enough
Will not be trusted." (Tao Te Ching 23)
That's the typical quote that you would hear from a good, noble man. I'm just saying. Anyways, I agree. I mean, who will trust you if you won't trust anyone else? You know the saying: 'You reap what you sow'. Be good to others, and they will be good to you too. Is that what the quote means? I don't know. I'm sleepy.

Yay. I'm almost already halfway through the book.
Let's hope I don't get bored of it just yet.

Balance

Tao Te Ching 1-12

As you might have noticed, I am reading a new book. It's called Tao Te Ching. Wow. My English teacher sure knows how to choose books. We read the Bible, Greek mythology, Confucianism, Hindu, and now, Daoism. Don't we ever get to read fun (some were fun. I mean like more of a sci-fi or some teenage *beep* like that) books? Well, whatever. It's English class.

So, the Tao Te Ching.
It's a book about Daoism. Right.
This book was different yet again. But this time, there was something VERY different. It was the first book without main characters. Even the Analects had characters like the Master and Zigong. This book, however, has none. It's basically a bunch of short teachings (kind of) of Daoism. They're just statements. No dialogues, no questions, no teenage vampires (thank goodness), and no plot.

The Tao Te Ching's main key term seems to be balance, as can be seen from some of the quotes in the text:
"Difficult and easy complement each other.
Long and short give each other contrast.
High and low require each other.
Voice and music harmonize with each other.
Front and back follow one another." (Tao Te Ching II Chapter 2)


I like this idea. Without this, there can't be that.
Stuff like that.

I don't remember where I heard it, but there was a saying that said: If there were no evil, there would be no good. Therefore, it must be good to be evil. Something like that. I thought it was cool.

Anyways, I hope this book gets more interesting (unlike the Analects).
Looking forward to it.

The Bible vs. Logic

In a case some years ago (also shown in the movie 'Inherit the Wind'), professor Cates was tried for teaching the evolution theory of Darwin. He had decided to teach the ways which were not on the Bible, therefore breaking the law. People went against each other: some thinking that the event of human creation should be based on what the Bible says, some saying that it was a course of evolution. The topic might seem stupid, but it wasn't back then.

Although today, there are almost no problems like this, people have argued throughout time about the creation of humans. Some claim that we have evolved from apes through a long period of time. Others claim the Bible to be true, saying that God had created the humans on the sixth day. But now, is the Bible exactly a reliable source?

God created Adam and created Eve out of one of his ribs according to the text, “And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.” (Genesis 2:22) That’s what the Bible says. Now, is there evidence that this happened? Although Darwin’s theory of evolution at least has some evidence or data from the past to back it up, the Bible doesn’t. The only proof that we know of the contents of the Bible is the Bible itself. Is that reliable? I believe not.

The Bible has many flaws that can’t just be overlooked. Take a look at this for example: “And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch.” (Genesis 4:17)Let’s get this straight. Where did Cain’s wife come from? The only humans existing were Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel (who is now dead). If the Bible doesn’t make logical sense, it’s probable that the contents are not true. Also, if the years are to be tracked back from the birth of Jesus, the creation of the world was at most three to four thousand years ago. Look at the discoveries people had made. They had found dinosaur fossils, ancient organisms, the time in which earth was created, and many other things that are from far before the time of the creation. Did dinosaurs precede God? How can the events from the Bible be true if it goes against nature and logic?

God has his problems in the Bible as well. Although he is shown as the superior ‘perfect’ entity, he is not as perfect as we think. Why did God create the snake if it were to trick Eve? God knew everything of every creature, right? I guess not. When Cain kills Abel, what did God do? Did God do anything to prevent the first murder from happening? Nope. God isn’t perfect as the Bible states. This lowers the reliability of the Bible even more.

The Bible, its events and its belief shouldn’t stop anyone from believing what they want to. Although less than before, there are still problems caused by people who yet don’t understand this. Just know this: The Bible is a book. It’s actually a good book. But guess what? It’s not the only book.

Teachings Forgotten?

Reading the Analects isn't as fun as I expected. There was nothing that made you go 'Oh! I love this quote!' or 'Hey! I know this quote!'.

Well, at least that was until I read book 15.
There was the quote: "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." (Analects 15:24)
Hey! I know that! More commonly known as the golden rule, and used one million times every day by teachers. The 'don't-do-anything-to-others-that-you-don't-want-done-to-you rule. To say the truth, I didn't know that it originally came from Confucianism. Well, I guess it is, and everyone at least knows something from it.


It was interesting how the teachings in the book are divided into two: the useful and the we-don't-need-these-teachings. What do I mean? Although some teachings are taken into consideration (like the golden rule), some are just thrown away to the floor (like respecting the elders. Maybe you do, but it's very different from what Confucian people do).

It's too bad that the Confucian teachings are not being applied much around the world. The new generations are forgetting or not applying it to their lives. Now the teachings from the book are treated like some old Asian traditional teachings, even in Asian countries. Although reading it is sort of boring, I think it shouldn't be forgotten. At least in Asia, you know?

Confused ≠ Confucius

Let's start with how I'm already tired of this book after a few chapters (books, actually). Each line always (or most of the time) starts with 'The Master said' or something like that. This is so monotonous and tedious that I'm not sure if I can keep reading this. But nevertheless, the content and the teachings are not bad.

The Master said, "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." (Analects 7.8)
Wow. That's just mean. If you're not ready, you won't get it. If you're confused, no Confucius stuff for you, mister. Aww. I guess I'm not ready for this yet. Well then, that's the end of this post.


Just kidding!

This reminded me of this video I saw in school. There was a woman being asked who Confucius was. She claimed it to be the people who invented confusion, whom happened to be Chinese and Japanese people. Wow. What are the limits for human ignorance anyways? Our class had a good laugh.

Anyways, until now, the book doesn't have any super-big special idea or anything. Nothing much interesting. Just a bunch of monotonous talking and teachings. I hope there will be a quote that will catch my eye sooner or later.

Asian Confucian Tradition

Here I am, reading the Analects. The Analect is basically a book with Confucius teaching in no particular order. The 'Master' is usually saying the teachings to the student, both of them whom we don't know.

It seems that the book is quite different from other books (like most other books I have read and analyzed on this blog). First of all, the fact that it doesn't matter from where you start reading from. It will still make sense. Another thing was that the whole book was sort of a conversation. Dialogues. This was a weird form a book could have, and it's one that I personally wouldn't use for books.

This book had many key terms and teachings, many that I was already fond with, just because I am Korean. You see, although many people in Korea are Christian (like me), Buddhists, etc., they still have the Confucius attitude and ways of doing things left in us from long ago. We consider it more as 'tradition' rather than 'beliefs' or 'religion'.

Back to what I was saying. The key terms seem to be very important in this particular book. See this sentence for example:
“Without Goodness no one can remain constant in adversary and cannot endure enjoying happiness.” (Analects 4.2)
Did you notice the 'Goodness' with a capital G? I'm not sure whether it is like that because it is very important, or because it was actually considered a proper noun or something when being translated.

I guess the book will be interesting.
Time to go back to the good ol' Asian religion.

Random Chunks of Writing?

Psalms 23, 42, 51, 137

These pieces were different from the others.
Unlike the others in which there actually was a beginning, middle, and an end, these just seem to pop out of nowwhere.

Psalm 23 was one in which David praises God. He says,
"The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want." (Psalms 23:1)
Obviously, this shows that David is very loyal to God, believes in him and knows that God will guide him through the right path.

However, the tone was different in a different part of a Psalm of David.
"Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions." (Psalms 51:1) says David. He rather sound sadder and regretful. If you knew the story of David, this is the part in which David is begging to be forived for how David indirectly killed Uriah to get his wife, Bathsheba.

In Psalm 42, the person sort of questions God. Now, now, don't do that. Remember Job? Hahaha. Anyways, although he questions God, he still praises God and believes him in the end.

Here, after I had read some parts of Psalms, I noticed that these don't sound like songs. They sound rather more like random chunks of stories. Is it because it's a translation? Is it because there's no melody to it? Maybe both?

In Psalm 137, the person singing this 'song' seems to remember something from his past. Something about Zion. Ooh. Now I know where the 'Zion' from the 'Matrix' came from. It did come from the bible, right?

All of these parts that I have read show people generally praising God. I guess that's the whole point. However, it is somewhat harder to understand than most other stories due to the lack of background information.

Fairness

Second Samuel 2~18

To be very simple, Joab kills Abner, David mourns for him. Ish-bosheth is betrayed and killed. David becomes officially the king of Israel. They attack Jerusalem and win the castle. They bring the Ark of Covenant into the castle. He indirectly 'steals' the wife of a soldier (through the deth of the soldier in war), and is punished through the death of their first son. Absalom kills Amnon (both are David's sons). A few years later, Absalom is forgiven by David. Absalom becomes the king of Hebron.

Although these chapters had much more information than just this, if said simply, that's pretty much it.

I thought it was cool that all the situations in the story involved fair and even judgement. When Ish-bosheth's soldiers betrayed him, killed him, and took his head to David, David ordered to cut their arms and legs off. That's what they get for betraying their own king.

Mephibosheth, who was Jonathan's son, was given all the land that Saul previously had, for although his grandfather (Saul) was evil, his father was 'righteous', so David made a fair decision for him.

When David killed Uriah and married his wife, the child died, which was God's fair judgement towards the sin that Davd had commited.
"Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun." (Second Samuel 12:11) said Nathan to David. God sure is very fair (and is a very good promise-keeper), for all that God had told Nathan to tell David has or will come true. Too bad David couldn't live all his life as a righteous-loved-by-God guy.

Judging by all that has happened, Absalom will soon recieve fair judgement too. He killed his brother, and although David did forgive him, I don't think God will stay happy about it. Whatever.

David Against the World

First Samuel 17 ~ Second Samuel 2

A Philistine, Goliath (who is huge) challenges Israel. David goes to fight him with permission from Saul. David shoots a rock at him with a sling and then kills him with Goliath's own sword. The army wins the Philistines. David and Jonathan (Saul's son) becomes friends.

Soon, when Saul starts worrying that David will take his place of king, he keeps sending David to wars, always to return with victory. When Saul tries to kill David diretly, David runs away. While Saul was searching for David, David had the chance of killing Saul in his sleep, but doesn't. When Saul wakes up, he sees what he has done wrong.

Saul gets told by Samuel that he is to die with his sons the next day. While David fought some Philistines and won, Saul's sons were killed by the Philistines in their own war. Saul suicides. David and his people mourned for all of them. Then David goes to Hebron where he is blessed as a king. Meanwhile, Abner and Ish-bosheth were ruling the other side of the Jordan River.


In the fight between David and Goliath, I think it had much more meaning than just how you would be better off believing in God. It also shows that sometimes the small can win the big, that the young can win the old, and so on. Don't underestimate prairie dogs just because they are small and cute. They can kill you.

When David had the chance of killing Saul, he said:
"Behold, this day thine eyes have seen how that the LORD had delivered thee to day into mine hand in the cave: and some bade me kill thee: but mine eye spared thee; and I said, I will not put forth mine hand against my lord; for he is the LORD’S anointed." (First Samuel 24:10)
Something about how he didn't kill him, for he was chosen as a king from God in the first place. Since God had already regretted having Saul as king and wanted another, killing Saul wouldn't have been much. Actually, I think it would have saved Jonathan too. Well, too bad.

It's cool how David goes through all this trouble (although, typically, he overcomes it all and goes on to his next trouble). It's like as if David is the hero of our comic book, and it's him against the rest of the world. I'm just saying.

Reward for the Sinned

Job 11~42

Job keeps claiming himself as righteous before his three friends. Then Elihu appears. He tells Job that it is only God whom decides whether he s righteous or not, and that what he has said is questioning God. Also, he points out that the friends have done wrong too, for they have condemned Job, yet with no answers. Elihu does his long persuading, until God summons a whirlwind and strikes Job with many questions. Job finds what he has done wrong and prays to God for his sin. Job and his friends make an offering to God, who accepts it happily. Job's skin got back to normal, and soon, all his belongings came back. More kids, more animals, etc.


This was not like any other story. At least all the others were kind of linked with each other. The story continued from where it left off. This was different. This was more of a 'once upon a time' thing. I think Job is just a short story to give us the lesson of how religious beliefs were God-based and not human-based.

This was one long book. It wasn't all that particularly long compared to other books, just that most of it were conversations that sort of kept talking about the same thing over and over again. But whatever.

Elihu is a really good persuader. I learned about persuading methods in school, so this was somewhat interesting. Well, not really. You see, I'm sleepy. But he really used well-combined words to convince both Job and his friends of the concept of right and wrong. This can be seen in
mostly anything he says. Here's an example: "Thinkest thou this to be right, that thou saidst, My righteousness is more than God’s?" (Job 35:2)

Although Job sinned, he didn't curse God in the end. Just claimed himself as righteous. Right. Job gets rewarded in the end. Happy ending. Woohoo. But then, I start wondering: What happened to Satan? After chapter two, I never saw him again. What is he up to now, I wonder.

Job is too Talkative

Job 1~10

Job is a wealthy guy who is very loyal to god. One day, Satan comes over to God and says that Job will surely curse God if he were to take away all his property. To test Job, all his animals, servants, house, and children were all killed. Yet, Job remained loyal to God. Then, Satan gave Job soars all over the body. His three friends (Bildad, Eliphaz, and Zophar) came to Job to mourn with him and all that stuff. They soon talk about how Job must have made a sin, or else God wouldn't have punished him. Blah blah blah.

First point to make. Satan has actually appeared for the first time (as far as I know)! Another thing to note was here:
"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them." (Job 1:6)
What do they mean by 'sons of God' here? Are they referring to angels? People? Jesus maybe? Logically, it wouldn't be people or Jesus, so it would be angels. But then, the word 'angel' did not appear even once in Genesis and Exodus.

I was amazed at Job's loyalty towards God. If they killed my sons, took my animals, and all those stuff Job had gone through, I would have lost all hope and would have started to beg to God or something like that. If not that, I would have had a 'oh-whatever-screw-God' kind of attitude. I'm just lucky it didn't happen to me.

Most of the text in Job were conversations between Job and his friends, so it was sort of boring. More boring than most other things I have read. But whatever. It's a famous story and one of those classic-must-be-read kind of thing.

But seriously. Stop talking so much. [sad face]

Is it All Coincidence?

Exodus 3~20

Moses sees a bush on fire, though not burning. There he talks with God abut how he was chosen to save his people in Egypt. He meets Aaron and goe to Egypt. They ask to take their people as well as their property and animals. The pharaoh doesn't listen, does he? They made the river into blood, summoned frogs, fleas, lice, and flies. Then he killed their animals, gave skin disease, sent storms, grasshoppers, and even blocked the sun. The pharaoh still didn't agree. So God kills all the non-Israelite peoples' oldest son, including that of the pharoah. Finally they are set free.

The people follow the cloud and the fire, until they get to the Red Sea, which they cannot cross. Moreover, the Egyptian army was coming towards them from behind. Now the super-famous story. Moses splits the water, creating a path.

Now hold it right there.
Remember how I said before that the Noah's Ark might be true? There was a similar story in Gilgamesh, and as it happens, in the story of Deucalion and Pyrrha (from Greek mythology) as well. What I'm trying to say that these things might have been history. So, the story of Moses splitting the sea might have been history too. There's actually a scientific theory that this might have been possible at the time. They might have just simply crossed the sea when it was low tide, and it came back on high tide.
If this is true, the following quote, "But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left." (Exodus 14:26), is either false or exaggerated. I'm just saying. Oh, by the way, that semicolon is part of the quote, so do not castrate me for the sake of all that is pretty and pretty.


Back to the story. They cross, and while the Egyptian army is still crossing the sea, the sea reunites, drowning them. God constantly saves them (despite their frequent disbelief), by providing them water, birds, bread, victory in fights, etc.

Moses then goes up the mountain to meet God, where he is to be given the Ten Commandments.


As said before, this could have been all coincidence. Egypt could have been going through a drought and an eclipse, you know? If all these stuff were true, it would be something big. However, it's not all that probable, right?

This is where you can like seriously see God's forgivingness. The people start whining, God does something to convince them and forgives them. Repeat action. I guess God really loves Moses. If continued to be read, they constantly go back to their default setting of doubting, resulting in punishment. Actually, due to God's punishments, Moses never even made it to the promised land. Too bad. He was too busy taking care of the people.

If you noticed, I keep making points that lead to that the stories in the Bible are not acts of God. Well, I'm just saying that because it's interesting, you know? I'm Christian, so I do believe that. I just somehow try to have it make sense when matched together with another piece, so that we can all be right and we all live happily ever after.


So yeah. Cool.
TEEHEE

Fight with God

Genesis 22~35

God tells Abraham to offer Isaac, his only son, as sacrifice. Just as he is about to kill his son on the top of the mountain, an angel orders him to stop, and says that since Abraham was loyal to God, he is blessed by him.

Many years later, Abraham orders a servant to find a wife for Isaac. He finds Rebekah. She marries Isaac, having fallen in love with other at first glance. Rebekah soon bears twins. Jacob and Esau were born. Esau became a hunter, and Jacob became a plain man. Esau was the older brother. Isaac loved Esau, but Rebekah lover Jacob. One day, Esau gave away his birthright for bread and pottage of lentiles. (Haha, what the fudge.) One day, after Isaac had gone blind, Isaac told Esau to bring him some food, and then he were to bless him. Not wanting this, Rebekah called Jacob, made food, gave it to him, and told him to take it to Isaac, so that he could be blessed instead. Jacob runs away to Haran. He stays there twenty years with two wives and twelve sons.

When he is going back, he finds out that Esau is coming this way. He prays to god and sends presents to him. That night, someone appears before Jacob. Now here, it gets interesting. It makes you say 'what the fudge'.

I was just reading, and just out of nowhere, starts a wrestling match:
"And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day." (Book of Genesis 32:24) Just like that. Wow. It's totally possible to wrestle all night, right? It gets weirder.

"Let me go, for the day breaketh." (Genesis 32:26) says God. I see no reason for you to stop wrestling. I mean, you wrestled all night, right?
"And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me." (Genesis 32:26) says Jacob, against what he said. Right.

God then asks Jacob's name, and then says,
"Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed." (Genesis 32:28)

What the fudge? God deides to call him Israel just like that.

So Jacob meets with Esau, and he is not mad. They have a happy ending. He gets a son called Benjamin. Then, he goes to his father, Isaac, and all is forgiven. Isaac dies at age 180.



Let's start with Esau's birthright. What the? You don't just go give away your birthright for food. That's like giving away your virginity away for money. In other words, it's like being a prostitute. Esau was like a prostitute. Uh-huh. Right. Never mind.

The post is called 'Fight with God', because that part was particularly interesting, or let's just say, weird. You don't just wrestle all night just like that. That part was just all nonsense. There was a quote that I didn't put, which was:
"Therefore the children of Israel eat not of the sinew which shrank, which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day: because he touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh in the sinew that shrank." (Genesis 32:32)
Yeah, of course. Right. That's not a good reason though.

Anyways, I'm sorry if something that I said had offended anyone. I didn't mean to. I just wrote whatever that came to my mind.

Human Default Settings: Evil

Noah's sons soon multiplied.

♠ Increased genetic disorders
♠ Fluctuating facial asymmetry
♠ Lower birth rate
♠ Higher infant mortality
♠ Slower growth rate
♠ Smaller adult size
♠ Loss of immune system function

These are some of the results of inbreeding. Is this why we live less these days and the people in Genesis lives over a few hundred years?


Anyways, people soon think that they can be superior to God. They started building a city so high that they would prove the previous. God decides to make different languages so that they wouldn't be able to communicate. The city was never completed. The people all separated. It is told that the people who went towards the East started eating raw fish and got funny looking eyes. Just kidding.

This is taking to long. Let me speed up. Abram and Sarai go to Egypt, but are soon kicked out. They go to Canaan, where he separates with Lot. God says something about that he will have as many sons. Abram marries Hagar and gets a son: Ishmael.

God visits Abram. (Sarai is now Sarah. Abram is Abraham) He says that Sarai will soon have a son. Anyways, he says that he will destroy Sodom for the people their were sinful (if that's a word). If there's ten righteous people he will forgive all of Sodom. Yet, there were only four: Lot and his family. They run away from Soom with Lot and his family while Sodom burns behind them. Lot's wife becomes salt for not listening to the angels who told them to not look back at Sodom.

Sarah has her son as promised. He is called Isaac. Due to fights between Hagar and Sarah, Hagar and Ishmael are sent out. On the verge of death from lack of water, God helps Hagar and Ishmael. Ishmael soon marries an Egyptian woman and becomes the leaer of a tribe.


Chapters ten through twenty-one were interesting. First of all, it explained the spread of people and the formation of languages. It was weird that the story of Babel, which is famous to represent the evil of humans, was not more than a few verses.

It was kind of sad when Hagar, along with Ishmael, were sort of kicked out. It wasn't all that fair, since Ishmael was Abraham's first son. Well, as they say. Life ain't fair. But whatever, they get a happy ending.

Another interesting thing I foundout as that God usually didn't punish someone directly, or at least, not everyone. As seen from the following quote, "And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife." (Book of Genesis, Ch.12 - 17), he plagued the Pharoah's house. In Babel, the language was changed. Why didn't he just use his psychic powers and kill the bad people? The conclusion that I got was that although humans may be 'evil', God still loves them. In the case of Sodom, Lot was saved for being 'righteous', and in the flood before, Noah was saved.

You might be wondering why my title is 'Human Default Settings: Evil'. This is because no matter how good people are (like Noah), they somehow get evil and defy God. It's like as if their default option setting is to be naturally evil, and sooner of later, they go back to that setting. Just like Cain, the corrupt people before the flood, and the people from Sodom.

The First Man?

Down came the god from the sky
And in the short blink of an eye
Created the man, don't know why

My guess would be that he was high

The god went back flying away
The man left behind where he lay
He now was alive, hooray!
So he thanks the god and prays:

Thank you, oh thank you I say
Yet let me say this, if I may
For seeing me naked, you'll pay
Not trying to be mean, but you gay?

Being mad of the words that he said
He punished the man, who dropped dead.


I'm sorry. I was just desperate to write a poem.
I know, I know. I don't have a poetic sense.
Well, that would explain why that god created women.

Love and Punishment

Now reading the Bible. By the way, I'm Christian. Just because I'm Asian doesn't mean I'm a Buddhist or is Hindu.

Simply said, God creates the world in six days and rests on the seventh. Eve, the woman created along with Adam, decided to eat the fruit from the tree that God forbid to eat from, because a serpent persuaded her to. They are kicked out of the Garden of Eden, and they live outside with kids and all. Happy life. Well, until Cain decides to kill Abel. Cain runs off.
In the future, God decides to wipe out all living creatures, including humans. Yet, he tells Noah and his wife to get a pair of each animal to save them. Is this when unicorns went extinct? Anyways, Noah's decendants live happily. Noah dies in the end of chapter nine of the Genesis.

It kind of strikes me weird that God planted the forbidden tree of knowledge in the garden in the first place. Was it to test the newly created humans? If it were me, I would plant it in a secret garden in Russia or something like that. Maybe it was because God trusted them. But why did they act differently? I thought God knew how each person and animal was. I mean, he created them, right? My conclusion is that although he loved and trusted the humans, the snake was a fail in terms of being a pretty and nice earth creature.

God loved Adam and Eve, but then they are punished and sent out of the garden. Their kind were still loved though, until he punished them through sending a supermassive flood. Then, the descendants are loved. If thought very simply, the whole story until now is of love and/or punishment. Weird.

Again, I have to mention the fact that the story of the Noah's Ark is very similar to that of Utnapishtim in the story of Gilgamesh. I guess it's maybe unrelated, since most of what happens before and after are different. Maybe it is the same story, since it was generally in the same region (Middle East, Mesopotamia).

Tree Love!

Don't mind the title. You'll find out soon.
Anyways, I finished the script of Metamorphoses. Fun.


The last story was 'Baucis and Philemon'. Zeus and Hermes decide to go to earth to see how kind the humans were. They weren't. When dressed as beggars (which is the one thing they don't look like they disguised up as in the picture), none of them gave the beggars food or shelter. This was until they went to a hut, where Baucis and Philemon, an old couple, served them with all respect.

In this part, I noticed something about the gods that I noticed throughout the stories. They were given human characteristics and were not much different from us, seeing that they are imperfect and all that stuff. For example, in this story, they doubted that the old couple had realized who they were, showing the same feelings and emotions we non-gods have. In contrast, the Holy Bible states that God created us like his appearance.
Greek mythology = Human-like gods
Bible = God-like humans.
I think there was a word for that, which I don't remember.

So Zeus and Hermes award them by granting them a wish. They wished that they were to live together and die together. Typical noble, not greedy, pure people. I'm kind of ashamed to say this, but I would have wished for money or something like that.

So when the day of their death came, they both became trees as they watched each other. Happy ending. So that is how the title relates with the story. Woohoo!

Anyways, Metamorphoses was a very fun book (or script) to read, and it made me think of many things, one of them being: "Why doesn't anyone believe in these stories as a reliegion or something? Why is it 'mythology', and not a 'belief'?" and stuff like that. Whatever, sorry.

Conclusion:
Trees have feelings. Respect them! Save paper.
NO MORE EXAMS.

Love, Soul, Underage Driving

There was a boy called Phaeton. Now he wasn't the best boy, nor the luckiest. Phaeton told his friends that his father was Apollo (and he's not lying). After being kind of beat up by his friends who thought he was lying, he goes in search for his father. When he reaches the temple, Apollo acknowledges him as his son, and promises to grant him a wish by the name of Styx (a promise by the name of Styx must be done). Phaeton asks to drive the sun chariot (or the sun), to which Apollo didn't want to, for it was too dangerous. Yet, a promise was a promise, and the wish was fulfilled. Apollo told a bunch of safety precautions to Phaeton before he left on the chariot, but he didn't listen. He was attacked by constellations, burned the earth, and finally, dies when he falls into a river.

This is exactly why I oppose to underage driving. Just kidding.

I know that Phaeton encountered some poor fate, but I guess he deserved it. He should have listened to his father at least. Well, it's not like I always listen to my father. Anyways, according to this, he was the one that burned Africa, making all the deserts. Technically, he started global warming. He was also the one that burned the skin of the people in Africa, forming the black race. Now, now. Phaeton obviously made more trouble than an average Joe there. Let's just hope the river water cooled his mind off as he went to the underworld.


The next story was Eros (or Cupid) and Psyche. So Psyche was very beautiful, making Aphrodite mad. She sent Eros to her so that he could punish her, but Eros falls in love with her. Therefore, they are allowed to marry with one circumstance. Psyche is forbidden from seeing Eros. When Psyche's sisters come and talk about her new wife, they thought it was suspicious, and suggested that he might be a monster. Although Psyche loved her husband, she decides to take her sisters' advice and at night, sees the husbands face with the candle. She sees Eros, and as she is surprised, some wax falls on Eros, waking him. He leaves, saying something about how love can never be together with doubt. Psyche does all kinds of things to get Eros back (doing chores for Aphrodite, going to the underworld for this thing). She soon gets petrified, but soon healed and reunited wit Eros. Psyche is made a goddess, and they live happily ever after.

Now, this was one of the stories that I liked from the whole book. I liked how 'Psyche' also meant the soul (or a butterfly), and how this particular one is going towards love, no matter what is in the way. Maybe it's saying that the soul and love will always be together. Did that make sense? If it didn't, never mind.

In the story, although Psyche is shown as the 'good' main character, doing all those stuff just for love, it seems she has some bad things too. She didn't believe her husband, despite their love, creating disbelief between them. Also, she was petrified because of the box given from the underworld because of the curiousity (and partly greed, since she was told the box contained 'beauty'). As the people say: The curiousity killed the cat. No. The curiousity ALMOST killed the cat. Well, in this case, the curiousity almost killed the butterfly. Whatever. Forget it.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that it is yet another happy ending story. I totally agree with what was said in the text:
Q: "So it has a happy ending?"
A: "It has a very happy ending."
Q: "Almost none of these stories have completely happy endings."

A: "This is different." "It's just inevitable. The soul wanders in the dark, until it finds love. And so, wherever our love goes, there we find our soul.

Speaking of which, what I said earlier about the soul/butterfly going towards love and being together wasn't total gibberish after all.

Be Yourself

I just read 'Pomona and Vertumnus'. I was wondering why I didn't know this story while I knew all the others, and I found out that this was the only pure-latin story in Metamorphoses.

So Vertumnus loves Pomona, but he just can't go to her as himself. He disguises himself and always watches her from far away (what most people would call stalking), until one day, he dresses up as an old woman and tells her that she should get a man, one such as Vermuntus (which is himself). He tells her a story to convince her, but it wasn't all that successful. Well, it turns out that Pomona knew that it was a disguise from the beginning. She tells Vertumnus to take the wig and the dress off, revealing his real self. Finally, Vertumnus is accepted.

It was just last post that I said that there were almost no stories that were entirely a happy ending, and guess what? Here's one right now. Maybe it has something to do with it being the only story that was not passed on from the Greeks.

This story is clearly trying to tell us a lesson. One that I always try to accomplish: Be yourself. This lesson was more directed towards the audience than the other stories, where it took some time to analyze all the meaning inside the story. Well, whatever.

The 'be yourself' thing kind of reminded me of something.
Can you guess? That's right.
I like bacon.

Disturbing Stories

I read the stories 'Erysichthon' and 'Orpheus and Eurydice'.
Although both are tragedies (kind of) and are both somewhat disturbing, it's cool how one's a typical story about a selfish guy, and the other is about love.

In 'Erysichthon', he decides to cut off a tree that is special to Ceres for his own. Well, he thought he wouldn't get punished, did he? Ceres ordered hunger to go to Erysichton, making him almost hungry to death. He ate all he food in the house, sold his family for more food, and in the end, ended up eating himself. The following quote sent chills down my spine, "Bon appetit." (Metamorphoses, p.40, Ceres)

I know it's kind of short and not that significant either, but I can just imagine with what kind of facial expression Ceres had when she said that. I don't know. Scary.


'Orpheus and Eurydice' is a very beautiful love story. Well, that's what I thought until Eurydice died of a snake bite. Orpheus goes to the underworld to get her back, and somehow manages to convince Hades and Persephone to give her back through his emotions expressed by his song. The only condition that she will be sent back alive, was that he was to not look at her as he went back above ground. Too bad miracles never happen. He looks back, Eurydice is sent back, and Orpheus is not allowed to go back in. Orpheus gets killed by these women who got angry at Orpheus for not being able to forget Eurydice and does nothing else. It was sad how Eurydice couldn't remember Orpheus in the end. Why does it seem that Greek mythology doesn't have any true happy ending stories?

Haha. Bon appetit.

Bird Love? - Alcyone and Ceyx

'Alcyone and Ceyx' from Metamorphoses was a great piece of writing.
In the story, Ceyx goes off on a boat-trip to hear a prophecy (for he thought that the gods disliked him or something like that), in which his wife, Alcyone, is left home alone. When Ceyx dies in a storm and Alcyone finds out, Hera (or Juno) decides to preserve their love and family through transforming and reviving them both as seabirds. They had children (chicks in this case) and lived happily ever after. Typical. Well, clearly, the gods had a weird sense of humor and decided to not just revive Ceyx. They had to become birds. Well, no complaints. I like birds.



First of all, why didn't Ceyx go through land instead of going through the sea if he knew that the gods disliked him? I guess he wasn't the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree.
Second, what the [beep] is with Alcyone, deciding to sleep in the shore? Yeah. Because that' a good idea. One that will bring back her husband. Yup.
Finally, why seabirds? Why not pigeons, sparrows electric eels or alpakas? Well, as I mentioned before, I like birds, so nothing to complain about there. What did they become anyways? Seagulls? Puffins? Pelicans? Penguins?

Speaking of which, I like penguins.

Chaos into All - Creation

The beginning of 'Metamorphoses'. Creation.

According to this, the world was created from chaos. A god popped into being, and he (if I'm not mistaken, it was Gaia, and most definetly not a he.) decided to create the earth and the sky. Humans were created from Prometheus using the earth to mold man. Too bad it's not possible in our days.

Anyways, it was pretty boring at first. The website in which I heard this piece had this slow and boring narrator. But the ideas presented were pretty nice. What actually made me think was the similarity this had compared with the big bang theory. This told that everything was once chaos: everything in one place, then the world was created. I can't believe how people in different times can have same ideas and thoughts despite their difference in terms of technology.

Another remarkable thing I could deduce was that from seeing that they said that the earth and sky were made, it appears people then thought that earth was the center of all the things in the universe, if you know what I mean.

Cool.

The REAL End...

This was a unique book i read. It wasn't about romance, spy detective plots, some Micael Bay super-action book, teenage vampires, or about wizards and dragons.
No, i was about teachings, and only teachings. I didn't realize this until later in the book. Anyways, the story that Krishna is trying to covince Arjuna to fight in a war in which he doesn't want to. In the process, Arjuna learns a whole load of divine stuff, and in the end, is convinced to obey Krishna, especially after Krishna decided to show that he was a god and shows his superiority. Psst. Show-off.

Some of the arguments that Krishna provided were very deep and convincing that it even made me agree sometimes. Yet, I will not be becoming Hindu.

Although I somewhat enjoyed reading this book, I'm not actually looking forward to another piece of writing like that. I believe I read enough Hindu writing for a lifetime.

The REAL End

of the Bhagavad-Gita

Closing the Curtains

Yay! The end of the Bhagavad-Gita. No more Hindu writing for a while.

Krishna tells Arjuna of three types of faith: lucid, passionate, and darkly inert. He explains with detail about each one with examples and metaphors. For example, he said, "Foods that please lucid men are savory, smooth, firm, and rich... Passionate men crave foods that are bitter, sour, salty, hot... The food that pleases men of dark inertia is stale, unsavory, putrid, and spoiled..." (p.132, stanza 8, The Bhagavad-Gita)

I'll just stop with the analysis here. The task is to draw. Not to write. I like drawing. =)

This... is pretty much it. Cool. :)

The End.

The Allmighty Show Off

Krishna shows his universal form to Arjuna. He tells Arjuna that all the warriors are meant to die, and killing them would only change his destiny by making him king. Also, Krishna mentions that those who understand him are to not come back to the material world. He shows his importance through telling many things to Arjuna, such as telling him that he is the universe and stuff.

It appears that Krishna is using 'ethos' (persuasion through character) to persuade Arjuna. He is making himself 'trustworthy' by emphasizing that he is a god and that he knows the way the universe is (He IS the universe. -_-).

When Krishna mentioned that it would only change his destiny, I don't think it is entirely true, for the warriors were meant to die later, and maybe that would have affected their destiny. Is there such a thing as changing destiny? Destiny means that there is already a path destined for you. Weird.

If Krishna is so powerful and a know-it-all, why isn't he doing what he believes is right? Is it because he is meant to teach others of the divine yoga? I guess so. Never mind. Case closed.

Although Krishna is showing off and doing all kinds of stuff to try to convince Arjuna to kill, it seems it's not changing Arjuna's will; it's only giving him more questions and confusing him more. Although Krishna is a god and everything, I still don't want Arjuna to kill. I want him to keep the peace between the families and stop it through non-violence. Sorry Krishna.

Rebirth?

The Karma Ghost - by Blob Maker Productions :)

This is a totally unrelated animation video. I just put it up because it is cool and the title includes the word 'karma'. Yes, I'm weird.

I think I'm the only one that finally noticed that the whole book will be about teachings. As in, they will not enter war until maybe the end.

Krishna keeps teaching Arjuna about yoga, such as the path of knowledge: the jnana yoga. He is later also told that when he dies, he should think of the divine, or he will go through the suffering of rebirth. Krishna keeps mentioning about how yoga is important for life and how it must be done.

I agree with most of the things that Krishna is telling Arjuna to convince him, and it appears that the things he is saying has a very deep meaning. Yet, some of the things he said sounded a little weird for me. For example, he said that reincrnation would bring suffering, but think logically: Based on the information given by the text, we are people who have lived before, and we apparantly can't remember it. This is more of a second (or more) chance to live a better life. Something like that.

Anyways, I don't have much on my mind now; I'm thinking about muffins. So that's the end of my very-short-and-simple-talk-about-rebirth-and-other-stuff-concerning-the-text.

Between Acting and Inacting

Arjuna is still arguing with Krishna. When will they end? Anyways, Arjuna thinks that knowledge is more important than action, but Krishna convinces him that to gain wisdom, one must go through action. (Karma Yoga) Also, he talks about how it has to be done with self-awareness. He explains how he has been teaching yoga for a very long time. They keep talking about how action is better than renunciation and so on.

I like how the ideas and thoughts given are very deep and convincing. Yet, I still see it somewhat wrong that Krishna is trying to persuade Arjuna to kill.

But now, Krishna is accepted as one of the main 'good' characters, and appears to be the 'right' character, making him more believable to the readers than it was in the first teaching.

I think it is pretty weird that they have still not had some action despite the time the story has been continuing for. I guess this shows how this is a teaching book and not a novel. This can also be seen from that the divisions are not called chapters but teachings.


In my personal opinion, I would still prefer that Arjuna wouldn't kill. Why? I don't know.

Matter of Perspective

Arjuna thinks that killing his kin is a great sin. Krishna tries to convince Arjuna to fight by telling his beliefs of how one is only destroyed physically, while life itself is intact.

I got to think about how people would have reacted at the time this was written. Maybe the fact that life is eternal might have been new to them and gave them something to think about. If they already believed in that before the piece of writing, then never mind. :)

I think that depending on what perspective, as in, how you see the situation, it gets very different. If you were Arjuna and you were not willing to kill members of your family, you would be left even more confused after what Krishna were to tell him. As for Krishna, believes the completely opposite, and is desperate to convince Arjuna.

I think it is wrong that Krishna is trying to convince Arjuna to kill his kin, although I had to agree on some parts of the beliefs.

I'm sorry if I wrote things that don't make much sense. It's late in the night and I want to sleep.

Who is Right?

Dhritarashtra and Arjuna are entering war on each other to decide who will be the kingdom's successor. (They are of the same family.) Arjuna hesitates before war, for he thinks it would be a great sin to kill his family.

Today, I'm going to focus on the question, 'Who is right?'. In the beginning, It is shown that Arjuna is supposed to be the rightful owner of the kingdom, and Dhritarashtra is trying to his son, Duryodhana. As we read this, it is quite obvious that Arjuna is the 'good guy', but is that true?

I think that it is thought so, simply because Arjuna is the protagonist. If Dhritarashtra was the protagonist instead, we might have thought something like this: Since Dhritarashra is stronger and more capable than Arjuna, he should be the right owner. So, in a way, this story is biased in favor of the protagonist.

Next, let's talk about how Arjuna thinks it is wrong to kill his kin and Krishna (the charioteer) doesn't. Who is right? The fact that Arjuna is the protagonist adds up to his somewhat noble thinking, making most of us think that he is right. Yet, this one is not quite like the first one, for both of them are considered on the 'good side', and this is simply an argument. According to my teacher, arguments are good. Fighting is not. People will think that one person is right but that the other person also makes sense.

Anyways, this is one weird, hard-to-understand, hard piece of writing. I look forward to keep reading it in the near future.

Death and Humanity - XII

This is a Sumerian poem in which Gilgamesh drops his drumstick and drums through a hole into the Nether World. Enkidu goes for it, but does not take the precautions Gilgamesh has given him, and he gets seized by the Cry of the Dead. Gilgamesh asks help from Ea, and opens a hole on the roof of the Nether World, from which Enkidu rose and told of how it is down there.

Unlike Tablet XI, in which death was represented as nothing more than just death (which was why Gilgamesh was afraid of death), this tablet emphasizes on the fact that there is an afterlife.

The fact that Enkidu didn't take the precautions given and went to the Nether World with luxurious objects might represent the same thing it did in the first tablets of the epic. He abandons the savagery, the wild, and chooses civilization, leading to his death. This can be compared with how the indigenous people (or leavers) are being destroyed: physically and culturally.

When Enidu came up from the Nether World, Gilgamsh tries to embrace and kiss Enkidu. This, again, shows that the author was gay. I' just kidding. It means that love was thought of differently back then than it is right now. It was more free.

Judging on how the Nether World was described, we can tell many things about the time this was written. They mentioned that the more sons you had before you died, you were more prosperous in the Nether World. This could mean that back then, having as many children was a good thing. Something like that. I can't find the right words right now.

It can also be seen that mourning for a dead person was considered very important, and that a proper burial was done to everyone, because of their belief that withoutit, they were to suffer after death.

It seems that this tablet, or even this whole epic, is a representation of humanity and death, and it's interpretation of the people back then.

Anyways, the Epic of Gilgamesh was fun to read, and gave me something to read and think about for some time. Therefore, I thank whoever wrote this. :)

Utnapishtim, Not Noah - XI

Tablet XI starts with Gilgamesh finding out that the old man is, in fact, Utnapishtim. Gilgamesh asks whether it was possible for him to live eternally too. Utnapishtim starts telling his story of how he had become a god. The gods have planned to destroy all life with a flood, but Ea, the wisest of the gods indirectly told Utnapishtim of how to survive and what to take with him (all the animals). In seven days, he finished the boat, which was used soon when the flood came. After a few days of non-stop rain, it stopped, and Utnapishtim found land. The gods come upon the land where he is, and although they first intended to punish him, due to Ea's persuasion, they change their minds and make him a god. Now, back to the present, Utnapishtim will test Gilgamesh whether he can stay awake for a week. Sadly, Gilgamesh falls into a deep sleep soon after the test begins. He wakes up on the seventh day, claiming he hadn't slept. When the seven breads and the markings on the wall proved that he failed the test, he is told to go back. Yet, Utnapishtim is willing to give him something, and tells him to pick the plant How-the-Old-Man-Once-Again-Becomes-a-Young-Man, and take it back to Uruk. He successfully gets the plant, but while he is going back, a snake steals the plant and ends up in Uruk empty handed.
Wow. That was one long summary.

Anyways, it struck me weird that the story of Utnapishtim was very similar to that of the Noah's Ark from the bible. This might mean that the event had actually happened, only somewhat exagerated and interpreted differently by different people. It was kind of unexpected that Gilgamesh were to return with nothing. Poor him. Lucky snake. I also liked how Utnapishtim said that men were tricky and how he knew that Gilgamesh was going to try to trick him, for it shows the potential of human nature. The weirdest thing from this tablet, maybe even from the whole book, was the name of the plant: the 'How-the-Old-Man-Once-Again-Becomes-a-Young-Man.' I mean, who calls a plant a 'How-the-Old-Man-Once-Again-Becomes-a-Young-Man?' Like seriously. Haha.

Life Ain't Fair - IX and X

These tablets start out with Gilgamesh, sad because of the death of Enkidu. He stays with his dead body until a worm crawls out of the body's nose. No, I don't like worms. He wears things from the wild, such as animal skin, and heads off into the wilderness. Wondering if he would also die, he decides do find Utnapishtim, who was the only mortal to be granted everlasting life, in order to find the answer. He kills lions, passes the monster guardians, and passes the long dark tunnel, arriving to a beautiful garden beside the sea. After getting help from a woman called Siduri, he sails through the sea, to an island, where he meets Urshunabi. They sail together to the waters of death. At the end of the water, they meet an old man, who tells Gilgamesh that only gods live forever, death is destiny, blah blah blah. Usual stuff.

These tablets were a sudden turn of events after the death of Enkidu. I didn't expect any of the things that happened. I like how the author kind of makes the story go very fast, but I'm not sure if I like all the repetition of phrases he is making. I think he may be doing it just a little too much. (i.e. I look like one whose grief lives in his heart, because of the death of Enkidu the companion. Together we made the journey across the mountains...) Just my thought of course.

Also, what amazed me was how much philosophical thinking there was back in Mesopotamia. Personally, if someone said 'Mesopotamia', I would have thought of old, ancient people who didn't have the same capabilities as we did right now. Maybe in some ways, such as technology, I was right, but I guess not all was so.

Enkidu is Dead - VII and VIII

Not actually Enkidu's death but it looks pretty much like it. :)

It turns out that the gods were arguing about how either Enkidu or Gilgamesh had to die for the death of the Bull of Heaven and Huwawa. They decide to punish Enkidu, who gets sick. He curses and blames the people who have made him 'civilized', for if not for them, this would not have happened. Yet, Gilgamesh makes him change his mind, who soon blesses those whom he has cursed. After days of suffering, Enkidu dies, and Gilgamesh is left very sad.

Enkidu is dead. Let's give him a proper funeral song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyFyAqLtHq8
Link leads to a video of Chopin's Funeral March.

OK... I didn't expect Enkidu to die so soon, but I guess he did. Tablet VII had a lot of inside meanings. Maybe the death of Enkidu represents the destruction of the 'leavers', and how Gilgamesh convinced Enkidu is how civilization is making the leavers not aware of this. Never mind. Just my thought.

Anyways, the epic is quite fun until now, and I'm not sure what events will happen now, especially since Enkidu is dead.

Love Fail - VI

Gilgamesh and Enkidu return back to Uruk, where they organize themselves again. The goddess Ishtar asks Gilgamesh to be her love; yet he refuses, for Ishtar was known to abandon previous boyfriends. Not good. Ishtar being furious, releases the Bull of Heaven (which is owned by Anu) upon Uruk. Enkidu fights it as Gilgamesh also joins him, and soon, the bull is killed. Gilgamesh and Enkidu are admired by the people. At night, Enkidu wakes up after a dream in which the gods were meeting in a council.

This tablet was just as interesting as the others, especially for it involved some fighting. (Yay.) I am amazed by the creativity the people back then also had. I am looking forward to reading the next tablets. :)

Huwawa Killers - IV and V

In these tablets, Enkidu and Gilgamesh goes into the Cedar Forest, while praying and making offerings to the god Shamash. They battle Huwawa, and defeat him after a while. They cut down the biggest cedar tree, so that they would be able to make a gate.

So far so good. I'm enjoying the book. Although this piece of writing is very old, I found out that it has a lot of inside meanings and symbolism. For example, Uruk symbolizes civilization, the forest represents nature, and the gate that they mention at the end of the tablet would be what divides civilization from nature. Also, in the part where both Huwawa and Enkidu are trying to convince Gilgamesh of what is right, they represent the bad and good side of humanity. It also reminds me of the terms 'takers' and 'leavers' from the book Ishmael by Daniel Quinn. I'm just saying.