Frequently, women are bothered by their husbands, because supposedly, we have little temperament and no patience at all with them. But, is it true?
“We’re not made like women, that we become furious over everything,” said Skarphedin.
(Chp. 44, pg. 75)
At first, I thought about the Vikings’ beliefs, when Skarphedin said how they were not made. Who made them and how, anyway? Until here, the saga hasn’t mentioned anything about the Vikings’ beliefs or religion. I am curios of this and hope I’ll be able to find out later on in the book.
But then, I focused on what he said, rather than where he came from. Maybe women take everything too seriously—at least in ‘Njal’s Saga’. We can see this is true, when thinking about the ‘war’ being fought between Hallgerd and Bergthora, a common hatred that later on becomes serious, when they decide to start killing other people, who are not included in the fight (their servants).
It seemed that both of them enjoyed revenge, and even enjoyed getting mad and fighting without a good reason. If these women had acted differently, and thus, contradicted Skarphedin’s theory in the first place, then the conflict wouldn’t have prolonged. Maturely, each one of them would’ve think wise to end the battle, and, therefore, not get mad just because of some vague dislike.
But, it’s Bergthora and Hallgerd we’re talking about; what about the women in general? The women throughout the world, today? Do they get mad over everything, and certainly, would they keep on struggling forever?
In the T.V, and the movies and books, it is not always that women characters show this behaviour noted by Skarphedin. Rather, some women are even more patient than the men. In reality, women don’t get mad over everything. It does depend on who the women is, to figure out what is it that gets her mad.
There are so many razes and ethnicities and beliefs today, and therefore so many different ways of thinking and acting. This might explain the fact that for what some women could be atrocious, for some others could be everyday material.
For example, a 15-year old teenager might like for guys to flirt with her, but, these flirting thing might make a 50-year old women mad and annoyed at the boys…anyway, it’s hard to find boys that actually flirt with 50-year old women. Should they do it, they surely do it for fun.
For the women to hate and what not to, she has been influenced by her own community and world. Perhaps, a women likes to eat watching T.V, while others not, just because they were educated to think of that as lazy, and disrespectful.
The changes in moods would also affect this ‘getting-mad’ thing. It happens to me. It’s not that my sister always gets me mad. Sometimes, I get mad at her with much more ease, because I might be having a bad day.
I have yet not decided whether Skarphedin was right, or not. Because, I’m sure this is Hallgerd’s and Bergthora’s case, I’m not so sure though, if it’s my case, and the case of the rest of the women.
So, Skarphedin was right, as he was referring to Bergthora, his mom, getting mad for everything. And I’m sure that she with her enemy, Hallgerd, were both very short-tempered women. So, he expressed himself wrong—he should have named his mom only, she being the only one he wanted to refer this to.
But, the again, what did Skarphedin know? Perhaps he was referring to the women living within his community, not only his mom. Though I can’t think of any more cases, maybe all the women within the period of time did behave like that. And, it is reasonable to say that time has influenced women in general to think and feel about things in a different manner. Not only time, but their past, family and own community.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Njal's Saga (30-39)
I’d like to talk about the friendship between Gunnar and Njal. What I like so much about it, is the way that they let nothing come between them (their wives) but how the decide that it’s not their problem.
I wouldn’t have expected for Gunnar and Njal to be friends. First of all, their personalities don’t match. While Njal is more into thinking, Gunnar prefers physical power, and is more into fighting.
Njal was upset over it. Gunnar asked him why he founded so ill-advised.
“Every kind of evil will come from her when she moves east,” said Njal.
“She shall never spoil our friendship,” said Gunnar.
“It will come close to that,” said Njal, “but you will always make amends for her.”
(Chp. 33, pg. 54)
Gunnar is planning to marry Hallgerd, and Njal is upset about it. Then, Gunnar assures that this marriage of his shall never spoil our friendship. This is an example of how truly does Gunnar appreciate this friendship, and how he won’t let anything come between them.
Though Gunnar is doing something that Njal believes is imprudent, Njal whatsoever respected his friend’s choice, instead of getting mad and angry because of his friend being foolish. It might be foolish to him, but if not to Gunnar, why bother?
It is incredible how strong the bond is, for each husband not to take sides with his wife, how both Gunnar and Njal respect their friendship as much as they respect their wives.
Gunnar said that he would never trust against Njal or his sons, and she went on raging. Gunnar paid no attention.
(Chp. 37, pg. 63)
After Hallgerd’s servant is killed in order of Njal’s wife, Gunnar mentions this towards his wife. Angry and disappointed, Halberd’s leaves, because she would’ve expected for her husband to join her ‘side’. But Gunnar whatsoever understand that the ‘war’ is hers, along with Njal’s wives. So both husbands decide to remain aside. Gunnar makes it clear to his wife, that no matter she does and thinks, his friendship with Njal will carry on.
So, no matter whether their wives are complete enemies (that they kill each other’s servants) Gunnar and Njal persist to be friendly.
“You two are a real match for each other,” said Hallgerd. “Both of you are soft.”
(Chp. 38, pg.66)
Even their wives agree with the strong bond between their husbands. Soft, in a psychological way, because Gunnar is not at all flexible in the physical sense; in a way that they agree in paying for their wives’ mistakes and endless envies, in a way that they understand how it must be hard to deal with such woman.
Whether this type of friendship were to be produced in reality, I bet it wouldn’t last. I guess it would be because the smart one thinking as the strong one to be kind of dumb, to prefer to fight rather than think about it. And, so it would happen backwards; the strong one would think the smart one was a coward, because of not wanting to fight.
This friendship shows that if tried out, it will be possible for two people to persist friends, no matter all the obstacles blocking the way, or bad influences that might break the relationship once and for all.
The friendship between these two characters shows us that it is possible for two totally different people to be friends, as long as they respected each other’s beliefs and likes.
I wouldn’t have expected for Gunnar and Njal to be friends. First of all, their personalities don’t match. While Njal is more into thinking, Gunnar prefers physical power, and is more into fighting.
Njal was upset over it. Gunnar asked him why he founded so ill-advised.
“Every kind of evil will come from her when she moves east,” said Njal.
“She shall never spoil our friendship,” said Gunnar.
“It will come close to that,” said Njal, “but you will always make amends for her.”
(Chp. 33, pg. 54)
Gunnar is planning to marry Hallgerd, and Njal is upset about it. Then, Gunnar assures that this marriage of his shall never spoil our friendship. This is an example of how truly does Gunnar appreciate this friendship, and how he won’t let anything come between them.
Though Gunnar is doing something that Njal believes is imprudent, Njal whatsoever respected his friend’s choice, instead of getting mad and angry because of his friend being foolish. It might be foolish to him, but if not to Gunnar, why bother?
It is incredible how strong the bond is, for each husband not to take sides with his wife, how both Gunnar and Njal respect their friendship as much as they respect their wives.
Gunnar said that he would never trust against Njal or his sons, and she went on raging. Gunnar paid no attention.
(Chp. 37, pg. 63)
After Hallgerd’s servant is killed in order of Njal’s wife, Gunnar mentions this towards his wife. Angry and disappointed, Halberd’s leaves, because she would’ve expected for her husband to join her ‘side’. But Gunnar whatsoever understand that the ‘war’ is hers, along with Njal’s wives. So both husbands decide to remain aside. Gunnar makes it clear to his wife, that no matter she does and thinks, his friendship with Njal will carry on.
So, no matter whether their wives are complete enemies (that they kill each other’s servants) Gunnar and Njal persist to be friendly.
“You two are a real match for each other,” said Hallgerd. “Both of you are soft.”
(Chp. 38, pg.66)
Even their wives agree with the strong bond between their husbands. Soft, in a psychological way, because Gunnar is not at all flexible in the physical sense; in a way that they agree in paying for their wives’ mistakes and endless envies, in a way that they understand how it must be hard to deal with such woman.
Whether this type of friendship were to be produced in reality, I bet it wouldn’t last. I guess it would be because the smart one thinking as the strong one to be kind of dumb, to prefer to fight rather than think about it. And, so it would happen backwards; the strong one would think the smart one was a coward, because of not wanting to fight.
This friendship shows that if tried out, it will be possible for two people to persist friends, no matter all the obstacles blocking the way, or bad influences that might break the relationship once and for all.
The friendship between these two characters shows us that it is possible for two totally different people to be friends, as long as they respected each other’s beliefs and likes.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Njal's Saga (19-29)
Turns out Vikings weren’t as I expected—or at least the Vikings that have been mentioned so far in Njal’s Saga. The Media has been showing me Vikings that are supposedly big, old, stubborn, fat men (and by the Media I mean comics, drawings, etc). When we were told in class that we were going to read Icelandic Sagas, my mind immediately turned to what for me was a traditional Viking.
I imagined for the Saga to mainly talk about these Vikings’ life, which I thought was going to be mostly about violence, or rather stupid fights and daily problems that they would deal with; I pictured fights over a small pieces of terrain, or food, or any other kind of property. In conclusion, never would I have related, say, warriors of Troy, to Vikings.
But the Saga had indeed shown me otherwise, and many ways in which I can relate them.
To start off, Gunnar. Never would I have imagined a Vikings with such positive qualities, and so many. Not only was Gunnar an excellent sword fighter, but he was pretty good with bow and arrow too. He could jump twice his height, and he swam like a seal (Pg. 35). He was handsome, too. And now I compare him to my ‘Viking-rough model’ guy (which is the picture posted with this entry), and notice that it is little they have in common.
What about Njal? It was pretty hard for me to get used to a good-looking Viking (Gunnar), and kept forgetting he was an actual Viking. And then, comes Njal, and he was so well versed in the law that he had no equal, and he was wise and prophetic, sound of advice and well-intentioned, and whatever course he counselled turned out well (Pg. 35). A smart Viking? In my mind, it was connecting two totally different words, that I’d never thought about them meaning one thing.
Perhaps the reason why I thought so differently of Vikings, is because I related them to ‘Barbaric’. I have to understand, now thinking about it, that they are two different words, and they mean something different;
According to the Dictionary, Viking means any of the Scandinavian pirates who plundered the coasts of Europe from the 8th to 10th centuries.
Barbaric means without civilizing influences; uncivilized; primitive.
Though they could related, a Barbaric is not a Viking, as a Viking is not automatically Barbaric; that is more of a personal opinion, that it is up for the Viking himself to decide whether he wants to become Barbaric. True, the Vikings are pirates but they can still be civilized.
Therefore, I now know that the Vikings are not Barbaric; you can’t just think that all hippies are drug-dealers. True, some might like to smoke something once in a while, yet being a hippy shouldn’t make you a drug dealer…that way, not all Vikings are Barbaric.
What I used to think about Vikings, now I realize, must have been a stereotype. It certainly doesn’t mean that if one Viking (or just a couple) turned out to be grumpy and mean and fat, all Vikings will then be that way. I am glad I have realized this; I am once more aware of Vikings, in another way, and have enjoyed what I’ve read so far, of Njal’s Saga.
I imagined for the Saga to mainly talk about these Vikings’ life, which I thought was going to be mostly about violence, or rather stupid fights and daily problems that they would deal with; I pictured fights over a small pieces of terrain, or food, or any other kind of property. In conclusion, never would I have related, say, warriors of Troy, to Vikings.
But the Saga had indeed shown me otherwise, and many ways in which I can relate them.
To start off, Gunnar. Never would I have imagined a Vikings with such positive qualities, and so many. Not only was Gunnar an excellent sword fighter, but he was pretty good with bow and arrow too. He could jump twice his height, and he swam like a seal (Pg. 35). He was handsome, too. And now I compare him to my ‘Viking-rough model’ guy (which is the picture posted with this entry), and notice that it is little they have in common.
What about Njal? It was pretty hard for me to get used to a good-looking Viking (Gunnar), and kept forgetting he was an actual Viking. And then, comes Njal, and he was so well versed in the law that he had no equal, and he was wise and prophetic, sound of advice and well-intentioned, and whatever course he counselled turned out well (Pg. 35). A smart Viking? In my mind, it was connecting two totally different words, that I’d never thought about them meaning one thing.
Perhaps the reason why I thought so differently of Vikings, is because I related them to ‘Barbaric’. I have to understand, now thinking about it, that they are two different words, and they mean something different;
According to the Dictionary, Viking means any of the Scandinavian pirates who plundered the coasts of Europe from the 8th to 10th centuries.
Barbaric means without civilizing influences; uncivilized; primitive.
Though they could related, a Barbaric is not a Viking, as a Viking is not automatically Barbaric; that is more of a personal opinion, that it is up for the Viking himself to decide whether he wants to become Barbaric. True, the Vikings are pirates but they can still be civilized.
Therefore, I now know that the Vikings are not Barbaric; you can’t just think that all hippies are drug-dealers. True, some might like to smoke something once in a while, yet being a hippy shouldn’t make you a drug dealer…that way, not all Vikings are Barbaric.
What I used to think about Vikings, now I realize, must have been a stereotype. It certainly doesn’t mean that if one Viking (or just a couple) turned out to be grumpy and mean and fat, all Vikings will then be that way. I am glad I have realized this; I am once more aware of Vikings, in another way, and have enjoyed what I’ve read so far, of Njal’s Saga.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
St. Luke
And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.
For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? (9:23-25)
This piece of text called my attention, mainly because when I read verse 24, I was remembered of the ‘do nothing theory’ of the Tao Te Ching. But losing your life is doing something, though I wonder how is it that you loose your life.
Perhaps it means to loose your identity. Because if it is, it would be logically connected to verse 23. What Jesus is telling is that if there were any man or women that was willing to give up his or her life and totally devote it towards him (Jesus) and God, that is, loosing his/her life for my sake, for Jesus’ sake.
Because of someone loosing an identity for Jesus and God, later on (which is, I suspect, at the end, in the Kingdom of God), that someone will receive it back, having therefore a life being dedicated to Jesus and God. So, it is either having an eternal life of dedication and 'loosing of identity', or a non-enternal life, yet original, and your own.
So, perhaps having little identity might be a bit boring, and, obviously, very imitative…I’m guessing it’s the reason why such a small amount of people decide to follow Christ; only the people that have enough faith and willingness to do it.
The people whom I’d call followers of Christ (‘losers’ of their lives and identities) would be the nuns, and all the priest and high priests, people devoted to Church, Baptism, etc.
Why can’t we be followers of Christ, and keep our own identity (life)? First we need to know for sure what is to be a follower. I am a believer, that is for sure…but as a follower I get that it would be someone following Christ, therefore, wanting to do the same things as he did; not exactly go around the world and perform miracles, but rather, take the same path he took.
So, the believers (me) believe in Christ, believe that everything he did was the right, that all his teachings were correct. But, though we trust and respect his teachings, we don’t turn into them, as that is what the believers do.
The last verse, Jesus is practically saying what a waste it is, to try to save your life and therefore be in advantage because of it. Supposedly, a man is ‘benefited’ because of keeping his own identity, thus he can have the whole world. This doesn’t really make sense, because I am sure most of us have kept our identities (and chosen to be believers), but yet don’t have the whole world.
Then, a man who has gained the world will be lost, because of having so much power, which will later surely become unmanageable. Jesus is saying that a man with such benefit and power, which will lately become desperate and crazy, is just the same as to be a cast away, or as I thought about it, a stranger in the Kingdom of God.
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.
For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? (9:23-25)
This piece of text called my attention, mainly because when I read verse 24, I was remembered of the ‘do nothing theory’ of the Tao Te Ching. But losing your life is doing something, though I wonder how is it that you loose your life.
Perhaps it means to loose your identity. Because if it is, it would be logically connected to verse 23. What Jesus is telling is that if there were any man or women that was willing to give up his or her life and totally devote it towards him (Jesus) and God, that is, loosing his/her life for my sake, for Jesus’ sake.
Because of someone loosing an identity for Jesus and God, later on (which is, I suspect, at the end, in the Kingdom of God), that someone will receive it back, having therefore a life being dedicated to Jesus and God. So, it is either having an eternal life of dedication and 'loosing of identity', or a non-enternal life, yet original, and your own.
So, perhaps having little identity might be a bit boring, and, obviously, very imitative…I’m guessing it’s the reason why such a small amount of people decide to follow Christ; only the people that have enough faith and willingness to do it.
The people whom I’d call followers of Christ (‘losers’ of their lives and identities) would be the nuns, and all the priest and high priests, people devoted to Church, Baptism, etc.
Why can’t we be followers of Christ, and keep our own identity (life)? First we need to know for sure what is to be a follower. I am a believer, that is for sure…but as a follower I get that it would be someone following Christ, therefore, wanting to do the same things as he did; not exactly go around the world and perform miracles, but rather, take the same path he took.
So, the believers (me) believe in Christ, believe that everything he did was the right, that all his teachings were correct. But, though we trust and respect his teachings, we don’t turn into them, as that is what the believers do.
The last verse, Jesus is practically saying what a waste it is, to try to save your life and therefore be in advantage because of it. Supposedly, a man is ‘benefited’ because of keeping his own identity, thus he can have the whole world. This doesn’t really make sense, because I am sure most of us have kept our identities (and chosen to be believers), but yet don’t have the whole world.
Then, a man who has gained the world will be lost, because of having so much power, which will later surely become unmanageable. Jesus is saying that a man with such benefit and power, which will lately become desperate and crazy, is just the same as to be a cast away, or as I thought about it, a stranger in the Kingdom of God.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
St. Mark 11-16
Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, beleive that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.
(11:24)
Whatever the mind of man can conceive, it can achieve.
-W. Clement Stone
For this entry, I’d like to make a comparison between the two citations exposed above. Mainly, I chose that certain quote from the Bible, because as soon as I read it, I remembered about a documental I saw not too long ago: ‘The Secret’. It mainly talks about the Law of Attraction, which refers to thinking, and therefore having it. Within the documental, the quote by W. Clement Stone appeared, as it matches perfectly what they’re trying to say, about such law.
So, Both citations seem quite similar, cause both are saying an underlying message; in your mind, when you believe and focus on something you want, you can have. What is different, is the way in which you think about that goal/thing you want to reach.
As for the Bible, and everything within it, it is God. The Bible’s quote is referring to believing you shall have what you want, but also praying. Praying to God, for him to help you have it. Having patience and faith in him, and behaving.
Then, in The Secret, as the W. Clement Stone’s quote says it, it is only your mind and yourself you need, to accomplish things you want, goals to reach. Your mind, mainly.
It remains a mystery to me (and I bet to most too) about which ‘source’ (whether believing in God or the power of the human mind) is more beneficial, through which source is it more possible for what you want to come true.
As for Society today, it depends whether they are Catholics or not, for which method they decide to live with. But then again, not many people are conscious of the power of their own minds. I’d say most of us just stress over not having enough money to get something, stress over things we can’t get but want too much; we think life is being unfair. But, how can there be unfair when we don’t try?
I myself, use both methods. I am Catholic, and therefore believe and have faith in God. And, after watching the documental, the thing about the Law of Attraction did struck my mind, and I’d say I am new at this thing of such a power in the mind. I hope that impatience doesn’t feel me in, through the process of believing and conceiving.
Quote taken from:
www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/w_clement_stone.html
(11:24)
Whatever the mind of man can conceive, it can achieve.
-W. Clement Stone
For this entry, I’d like to make a comparison between the two citations exposed above. Mainly, I chose that certain quote from the Bible, because as soon as I read it, I remembered about a documental I saw not too long ago: ‘The Secret’. It mainly talks about the Law of Attraction, which refers to thinking, and therefore having it. Within the documental, the quote by W. Clement Stone appeared, as it matches perfectly what they’re trying to say, about such law.
So, Both citations seem quite similar, cause both are saying an underlying message; in your mind, when you believe and focus on something you want, you can have. What is different, is the way in which you think about that goal/thing you want to reach.
As for the Bible, and everything within it, it is God. The Bible’s quote is referring to believing you shall have what you want, but also praying. Praying to God, for him to help you have it. Having patience and faith in him, and behaving.
Then, in The Secret, as the W. Clement Stone’s quote says it, it is only your mind and yourself you need, to accomplish things you want, goals to reach. Your mind, mainly.
It remains a mystery to me (and I bet to most too) about which ‘source’ (whether believing in God or the power of the human mind) is more beneficial, through which source is it more possible for what you want to come true.
As for Society today, it depends whether they are Catholics or not, for which method they decide to live with. But then again, not many people are conscious of the power of their own minds. I’d say most of us just stress over not having enough money to get something, stress over things we can’t get but want too much; we think life is being unfair. But, how can there be unfair when we don’t try?
I myself, use both methods. I am Catholic, and therefore believe and have faith in God. And, after watching the documental, the thing about the Law of Attraction did struck my mind, and I’d say I am new at this thing of such a power in the mind. I hope that impatience doesn’t feel me in, through the process of believing and conceiving.
Quote taken from:
www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/w_clement_stone.html
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
St. Mark Chp. 1-10
Heaven, or the Kingdom of God. All of us will die someday, and all of us (or most of us) hope that we shall go to Heaven…or else Hell. Whether we deserve it, or what will happen next, we don’t know. At least I try to understand that it is up to God.
What is Heaven?
It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:
But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all the herbs and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.
(4:31-32)
At first, this quote confused me, since I’ve always thought about Heaven as something big, for all time, and this quote is saying that at first it is smaller than all seeds on earth (and I guess ‘all seeds’ represent everything).
But then, perhaps Heaven was somehow ignored in Earth for some time. Though it may not sound so, it is logical. Heaven and Earth are different places, such as, for example, Colombia and Argentina. As a different place, Colombia might be ignored in Argentina, because it happens to be, not there; just as Heaven might be ignored on Earth.
But, then, as time passed, Heaven will become more noticed. More people will die, therefore more people shall go to Heaven. And, then Heaven will become (or has already) a place where all shall go and fit. Not that Colombia will be superior than Argentina, but that as tourism may increase, so will the country’s image in the other.
But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.
(10:31)
So here, Jesus is speaking about the people that will go to Heaven. As the last entry I wrote (about the end of the world and who will be chosen) this idea is similar. It sounds a bit like Tao Te Ching (not doing anything, and therefore having everything done), but it is different. In both cases, Jesus is talking about the people on Earth, the first being the most wealthy and powerful of society; the rich people that supposedly are rich as for not sharing anything. And for their conceitedness and non-sharing wealth, they shall be the last to enter heaven.
So, the last, which will be rather the first, are the people belonging to a lower status that the superior class just mentioned.
Not including from what I’ve read in the Bible, I have been told that it is not exactly a physical place, but rather a state of mind in which you are extremely peaceful, with yourself and your surroundings. But, while you have this state of mind, where will you be? Physically? Perhaps after death there is not physical anymore, but rather, all imagination.
Recently I read a book called ’90 Minutes in Heaven’, which is a true story (written by Don Piper) about a man killed in a car accident, going into Heaven, and then coming back to Earth. From his visit to Heaven, Piper mostly recalls an abundance of happiness, that supposedly couldn’t be described by human words, that it was the happiest experience he had ever felt, and that as he gathered along with the other ‘dead’ people, nothing else mattered, but only the fact that they were, for once again gathered. Piper also dedicates a whole chapter describing Heaven’s music, as the most beautiful sound he had ever heard.
Nobody will ever know the truth, because they haven’t been to Heaven. What is different from Piper’s experience, is that supposedly, he was there. But how will we know Heaven is as it’s described in the book? Perhaps it is even different, to each person. It will only be known, when we ourselves get there.
What is Heaven?
It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:
But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all the herbs and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.
(4:31-32)
At first, this quote confused me, since I’ve always thought about Heaven as something big, for all time, and this quote is saying that at first it is smaller than all seeds on earth (and I guess ‘all seeds’ represent everything).
But then, perhaps Heaven was somehow ignored in Earth for some time. Though it may not sound so, it is logical. Heaven and Earth are different places, such as, for example, Colombia and Argentina. As a different place, Colombia might be ignored in Argentina, because it happens to be, not there; just as Heaven might be ignored on Earth.
But, then, as time passed, Heaven will become more noticed. More people will die, therefore more people shall go to Heaven. And, then Heaven will become (or has already) a place where all shall go and fit. Not that Colombia will be superior than Argentina, but that as tourism may increase, so will the country’s image in the other.
But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.
(10:31)
So here, Jesus is speaking about the people that will go to Heaven. As the last entry I wrote (about the end of the world and who will be chosen) this idea is similar. It sounds a bit like Tao Te Ching (not doing anything, and therefore having everything done), but it is different. In both cases, Jesus is talking about the people on Earth, the first being the most wealthy and powerful of society; the rich people that supposedly are rich as for not sharing anything. And for their conceitedness and non-sharing wealth, they shall be the last to enter heaven.
So, the last, which will be rather the first, are the people belonging to a lower status that the superior class just mentioned.
Not including from what I’ve read in the Bible, I have been told that it is not exactly a physical place, but rather a state of mind in which you are extremely peaceful, with yourself and your surroundings. But, while you have this state of mind, where will you be? Physically? Perhaps after death there is not physical anymore, but rather, all imagination.
Recently I read a book called ’90 Minutes in Heaven’, which is a true story (written by Don Piper) about a man killed in a car accident, going into Heaven, and then coming back to Earth. From his visit to Heaven, Piper mostly recalls an abundance of happiness, that supposedly couldn’t be described by human words, that it was the happiest experience he had ever felt, and that as he gathered along with the other ‘dead’ people, nothing else mattered, but only the fact that they were, for once again gathered. Piper also dedicates a whole chapter describing Heaven’s music, as the most beautiful sound he had ever heard.
Nobody will ever know the truth, because they haven’t been to Heaven. What is different from Piper’s experience, is that supposedly, he was there. But how will we know Heaven is as it’s described in the book? Perhaps it is even different, to each person. It will only be known, when we ourselves get there.
Friday, December 14, 2007
St. Matthew Chp. 23-28
I have to admit I am both curious and scared about the End of the World. Whether I will live to that day, chances are pretty low, both scientifically and biblically. Scientifics say that water will soon become scarce and that trees are being cut off, and ecosystems are damaged, and that the Global Warming is increasing. All these are ways in which Humanity could end. Though I am aware of the consequences of all this, I doubt these consequences will become of a larger problem, while my generation lives.
When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angles with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
(25:31-32)
I imagined if it was physically possible, for all the nations to be gathered around him; where would we all be gathered? How? But then again, God isn’t really a physical being. Perhaps, by gathered it is meant that everyone (I guess all humans on Earth) shall be paying attention to him, and will be communicating with him, deep within themselves, as some kind of deep reflection.
But something else came to thought…not all humans on Earth are Catholics; not all of them believe in this God that will gather all. I wonder what those people will do…perhaps they are not included in this massive gathering, or perhaps they will be, and chosen like all the others.
And he shall set the sheep on his right hand. but the goats on the left.
(25:31-33)
The sheep (or the people at God’s right, the ones who are saved and allowed to enter Heaven) were ‘saved’ or chosen in the first place, because of their good performance on Earth. By good, I mean (and so the Son of man thinks) the people that
For I was hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
(25:35-36)
They didn’t exactly clothed, or received Jesus—the Son of Man—himself, but rather, Jesus is identifying himself with the rest of the world. Meaning that these people were good, for receiving others (not just Jesus), for helping others in general.
Then shall he say also unto them on the left had, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angles:
(25:41)
As for the goats, the opposite people, Gos is sending them to hell, to the fire, to the pain. All these, considered as the punishment for the bad performance of these people while they lived.
Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the tour wherein the Son of man cometh. (25:13)
I’ll talk about this ‘day’ from a more personal point of view. First, after reading this, I asked myself: would I be ready? I’m not really sure about this, cause, never have I received a stranger or clothed someone, but I’ve done charity, such as giving things away and visiting neighbourhoods of people of a less status. But, then again, most people do this, without really wanting—without dedicating their heart towards it, doing it because they have to.
And, I guess it is this final detail (that though it is not directly stated in the Bible, it certainly is true), ever doing the tasks listed in the citations above will not guarantee our entrance to Heaven. For them to count, they shall be done with all attention and devotion put into it—wanting to do it; not doing it because you have to, or because you know that you are going to get a reward at the end, rather just because you want to.
So, we never know when the End is going to happen. As to be save, do good, do what God and Jesus approve, and but your full devotion into it. Don’t do it because you want to be save, do it because you really want to, and you know it will benefit others.
When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angles with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
(25:31-32)
I imagined if it was physically possible, for all the nations to be gathered around him; where would we all be gathered? How? But then again, God isn’t really a physical being. Perhaps, by gathered it is meant that everyone (I guess all humans on Earth) shall be paying attention to him, and will be communicating with him, deep within themselves, as some kind of deep reflection.
But something else came to thought…not all humans on Earth are Catholics; not all of them believe in this God that will gather all. I wonder what those people will do…perhaps they are not included in this massive gathering, or perhaps they will be, and chosen like all the others.
And he shall set the sheep on his right hand. but the goats on the left.
(25:31-33)
The sheep (or the people at God’s right, the ones who are saved and allowed to enter Heaven) were ‘saved’ or chosen in the first place, because of their good performance on Earth. By good, I mean (and so the Son of man thinks) the people that
For I was hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
(25:35-36)
They didn’t exactly clothed, or received Jesus—the Son of Man—himself, but rather, Jesus is identifying himself with the rest of the world. Meaning that these people were good, for receiving others (not just Jesus), for helping others in general.
Then shall he say also unto them on the left had, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angles:
(25:41)
As for the goats, the opposite people, Gos is sending them to hell, to the fire, to the pain. All these, considered as the punishment for the bad performance of these people while they lived.
Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the tour wherein the Son of man cometh. (25:13)
I’ll talk about this ‘day’ from a more personal point of view. First, after reading this, I asked myself: would I be ready? I’m not really sure about this, cause, never have I received a stranger or clothed someone, but I’ve done charity, such as giving things away and visiting neighbourhoods of people of a less status. But, then again, most people do this, without really wanting—without dedicating their heart towards it, doing it because they have to.
And, I guess it is this final detail (that though it is not directly stated in the Bible, it certainly is true), ever doing the tasks listed in the citations above will not guarantee our entrance to Heaven. For them to count, they shall be done with all attention and devotion put into it—wanting to do it; not doing it because you have to, or because you know that you are going to get a reward at the end, rather just because you want to.
So, we never know when the End is going to happen. As to be save, do good, do what God and Jesus approve, and but your full devotion into it. Don’t do it because you want to be save, do it because you really want to, and you know it will benefit others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
