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.

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

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.

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.

St. Matthew Chp. 13-22

There were various pieces (verses) within St. Matthew’s Gospels that called my attention, because of their similarity to the Analects. It seemed to me that some of the things told and taught by Jesus, are alike to some of the Analects’ fundamentals.

The citation just below refers to the Analects’ idea of ‘gentlemen’. I can conclude that both The Master and Jesus, define a gentlemen to be the same thing;

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. (15:11)

Told by Jesus, he is meaning to say that a rich man (that has the chance to be good nourished, therefore, the things that goeth into his mouth) is not a gentlemen. Rather a gentlemen is said to be one for what he says, whether he speaks sagely and does really mean it, and he is meaning for others to listen and perhaps ponder or learn over what he says.


Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (19:19)

It was easy to find, while skimming through the Analects, pieces of text relating to loving your elders and respecting them, as to remain by their side, always until death. So this citation above, that Jesus declares, is the same thing. Respecting your father and mother, and loving your neighbour (which might represent the people that live within your community), loving them as you would love yourself.


And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (19:24)

This last piece, though, can be said to be unlike the Analects, for one bit. We can say that Jesus is against the rich, since they shouldn’t have more than the others, which is unfair. Jesus says that the rich will never be able to enter Heaven—it is completely impossible, since supposedly harder than fitting a camel through a needle’s eye—because as being able to posses more things, he/she should give to the others, until he/she is not rich or superior in economics standards, and then he/she will have less, but the others will have a bit more.

But, never in the Analects what it stated that a gentlemen couldn’t be rich. Recalling the Analects essentials (rightness above all, intelligence, modesty, practices ritual), certainly a man could have these qualities, and still be rich, yet a gentlemen.

When we finished the Old Testament and started The Analects, never did I think these two sources would relate in some way, and it was probably because the vocabulary and language in which they were written in was simply different. Now, I am surprised that I found a similarity, which surprisingly, it didn’t turn out to be ‘rare’; I would have expected for Jesus and The Master (the two ‘leaders) to have sort of the same ideas about life and action.

St. Matthew Chp. 1-12

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
After this manner therefore pray ye: our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
(6:7-9)

I was reading the bible, and thought this last phrase sounded sort of familiar, until the answer popped into my head; Iron Maiden.

I think it would be interesting, to compare a piece of the bible, with the lyrics of some song.

So, generally, the piece above is suggesting how to pray, yet only for the necessary. We can pray for more, though we can’t get that more, since God knows what is it that we need; so he won’t grant anything to us, that isn’t really necessary.

The song talks about someone, that is in jail—or a cell—for some reason. So this mainly represents shame and remorse, loneliness and sadness, disappointment in one’s self, as he is describing the cell as ‘cold’.

But then, later on the speaker mentions God: Somebody cries from a cell "God be with you". If there's a God then why does he let me go? He is asking himself, why would there be a God if I am about to die (since my interpretation is that they are leading him towards death)? He believes that God would have been able to help him free himself, but he didn’t. So as an immediate conclusion: God doesn’t exist. Perhaps, he does, but he just didn’t want to.

Then, at the end of the song, it is repeated various times...Hallowed be they name.

Perhaps the repetition helps mark its importance. So I started looking for ways in which this phrase could link with the song. I believe the speaker doesn’t want to go wherever he is being taken—which is, I believe, death—but he is sure that he can’t do anything about it…that God must have wanted it that wa.

In the Bible they are saying that God I holly, since he knows what we need, and he will only gives us that. Holly, since, not only do people ask only God for things, but he is the one who can actually make them happen, if he wants.

What both have in common, is that, no matter if we want it or deserve it or not, we shall do and accept whatever God does and says, because, he is 'hallowed' and has special abilities, therefore we ask him and it is he who decides. No complains. He, only, knows what is right for us, and it is not significant, whether we disagree.

Lyrics from www.lyricsfreak.com/i/iron+maiden/hallowed+be+thy+name_20067959.html

Tao Te Ching (44-66)

I wonder how different from our countries today might a country being ruled with the Tao be. I am curious of this, because it was many times, within the pages that I read today, where the text mentioned how is it that a country should be ruled. I automatically compared these to reality, and did find many differences.

Ruling a country is like cooking a small fish.
(62)

I’ve just want to dedicate some of my thinking towards this line. I tried to look at the similarities between the two showed ‘things’, the relationship that there can be among them. Cooking is easy, that’s what we think, but then again, there is a difference between something that is cooked professionally, and something that isn’t. It’s cooking a small fish, because, though it may seem vulnerable and easy, it’s not. I’d say that some rulers and presidents today think that ruling a country is, easy, not because it really is, but rather because they may be filled with self-confidence, that is remembering them that I am capable of doing this, I chose to do it in the 1st place.

A country with troubles is considered vulnerable, miserable—a small…fish. A fish is usually cooked, as a country is usually ruled over, and I may add, that there is a difference between something done good, and something that isn’t.

A great country is like low land.
It is the meeting ground of the universe,
The mother of the universe.
(63)

A country is the mother of everything within it. Its geography allows there to be only one specified kind of products, allows for people to life only in specified areas. Its location influences tourism, as its climate influences culture, and customs (way of dressing). So it is considered the mother of its own ‘world’, culture.

When the country is ruled with a light hand
The people are simple.
When the country is ruled with severity,
The people are cunning.
(58)

The way in which a country is ruled influences the people. The people will tend to feel more trapped, when there is a lot of pressure on them, therefore making them rebellious, making them have a desire to be ‘more free’. When there is almost no obligations, and the environment and government is relaxed for the people, they will tend to act freshly, feeling they have enough space and freedom, and are in a good humour to do the little that is asked of them.

A perfect example of this is drugs. I believe, and others do too, that the restrictions of drugs in some countries, oblige the drug dealers to commit more crimes to get drugs. Perhaps, in a country were drugs were allowed, there wouldn’t be as much drug dealers, because now the drugs would be legal, making them a ‘normal thing’.

The more laws and restrictions there are,
The poorer people become.
The sharper men’s weapons,
The more trouble in the land
The more ingenious and clever men are,
The more strange things happen.
The more rules and regulations,
The more thieves and robbers.
(57)

I think that this citation just above is my favourite in the whole text. Because, it’s certainly nothing new said to me; I know this, I think all of us do…the difference is that we are not AWARE of it.

I’ve heard many times that the only way to stop fighting is to stop yourself first. If a country suffers an attack, for today’s society it is logical to attack back, but much more ‘harder’, bigger, in a way to make more suffering, to make that country understand how dangerous it was for them to threaten ‘us’ in the first place. But, what will this country do? Attack, yet again. And the ‘power’ of the attacks shall increase each time, as so will the intention grow with hatred, and hate.

So, it will never stop. Only will it increase, will it become each time a more violent war. And what the countries in this conflict are trying to do, is to make the other stop, they don’t realize that first they have to stop themselves, which might sound easier, but it is
indeed harder, cause for them, it will sound as giving up—the truth is that they will be giving up something: war and violence.

You wouldn’t think it is bad for men to become intelligent, but we have to accept, that it is true, that when there are more brains thinking, there is a higher chance for more hypothesis, guesses, and opinions to confuse us all. It happens, sometimes, that there are so many theories, about something, that we (society) are never sure who or what to trust.

The last bit of this citation links to one of my above explanations, of people tending to act more ‘cool’ when the environment in which they life in is ‘cool’ too.

In contrast to the world today, a country based on the Tao would indeed differ. Not much would be asked of the people, they wouldn’t have many restrictions either.

Tao Te Ching (29-43)

Since small, we (or at least I) were educated with the opposites. Given little puzzles, where our job was to build the correct pair of opposites—that is, matching black and white, and sun and rain. Never did I think opposites, in my life, would gain such importance—again.

Seems that, based on the Tao Te Ching, opposites are important to consider, since opposites can’t live without each other. I was able to bring several citations from the text, that show how is it that opposites are truly connected, and how, in each case, one of them might be better, in a way, than the other.

Being is born of not being. (40)

It matches the idea that things will only go right, and will happen, when nothing is done.
This quote can be said to say that bad is born of good, good being the NOT BEING, as bad being the being. These two (and the one just below), are examples of opposites connecting, and being a result of each other.

The ten thousand things carry yin and embrace yang.
They achieve harmony by combining these forces.
(42)

When the opposites are balanced, they will achieve peace, and, how things are to be, a mixture between good and bad moments and feelings. The ten thousand things, that is, everything, is a result of this balance, meaning that the ten thousand things achieve harmony, every now and then.

I was able to conclude, based on everything that the Tao Te Ching mentions, that, no matter which pairs or opposites, the ‘smaller’ one, is of greater importance. Not literally the smaller in size. Rather, the one that involves the least amount of DOING (wu-wei, and wu), the most vulnerable, too. Because every now and then it is mentioned within the text how power won’t lead you anywhere.

The softest thing in the universes overcomes the hardest thing in the universe. (43)

The vulnerable is, kind of the most powerful, after all, as it is the last thing that happens, the final result.

Based on the quote above, why be powerful when, at the end, you will be the least powerful? Rather, trying to be weakest since the beginning, you shall be somehow bigger than the most powerful.

I have realized how is it that opposites truly connect with each other, still, when they are so different.

Tao Te Ching (13-28)

Irony; usually, in the pages I read today, something was mentioned, say, being somehow beneficial, and then, mentioned again, but this time expressed as it if was foolish. Though I believe that in both cases, it is being talked of the same thing, perhaps it isn’t, it might only be using a similar/same term;

Therefore the ancients say, “Yield and overcome.”
Is that an empty saying?
Be really whole,
And all things will come to you.
(22)

What the chapter was speaking about before this, was about not doing anything, and getting everything, or the right reward. So, it’s good to be ‘empty’ instead of ‘full’. Better to rest, and therefore win. It is really ironic, but at the end it’s gets kind of normal, because I can find these kind of ‘do nothing’ thing around (as we learned in class: wu, and wu-wei).


Is there a difference between good and evil?
Must I fear what others fear? What nonsense!
(20)

So this is good; somehow, though we might not notice it, it is ‘nonsense’, that there is a definite good and evil. As there are different cultures and beliefs around the world, the view of what is evil and what is good might change, depending on culture. It might seem evil for the Catholics, to sacrifice themselves, as so did different Indian communities, a long time ago. But for these Indian cultures, it wasn’t evil. It was good. It was an act of bravery, and total devotion towards God. So there isn’t a difference. Because for some, scarifying may qualify as good, but for others, as bad. So they can represent the same thing, each term.

What is a good man?
A teacher of a bad man.
(27)

So this is complete irony. Didn’t it say, just above, how good and evil might define the same thing according to which your culture is? Perhaps it’s referring to what is good and evil for the Tao. What kind of ‘good’ and how much should a teacher be to be able to teach a ‘bad’ person, bad in what way? I couldn’t find any more citations that went more a fond in the topic, but I guess a good person, based on the Tao, is someone who is not proud, and that doesn’t feel superior. That doesn’t do anything without really needing to do it (wu-wei). So, as the total opposite, bad would be to have zero-modesty, and a desire to feel superior, standout, and overcome others. Of doing as much as possible, to be noticed.

For us, of the culture in which I live in, ‘good’ and ‘evil’ would be similar t owhat they mean for the Tao, except for the wu-wei part, because we con’t recognize someonethat doesn’t do something to be entirely good. In our culture (it could be said to be the school, serving as a very influential environment, or the ‘Latin’ culture itself), we would recognise this person as lazy. A hard-worker, instead of evil, for a person that lies to do extra work, or not leave everything for the last minute.

Irony; it’s confusing. But I guess it depends mainly on who you are and what is your point of view, what it’s influenced by.

Tao Te Ching (1-12)

What called my attention, while reading these pages, was the ‘ten thousand things’. What are they? Should they exist, or are they just something of moral/thought? To avoid curiosity, it doesn’t help either, that that phrase has been our topic in class since last week or something.

Within the text I found two citations that have perhaps might answer these questions.

The ten thousand things rise and fall without cease,
(2)

First of all, it is ironic compared to the phrase before it; that talks about ‘doing nothing’. Now, here, these ten thousand things do, since they sometimes rise, and sometimes fall. I guess everything sometimes rises, and falls, in the sense that, if living, it can feel happy, and other times sad, though it can be literal, as the waved of the ocean. So all these types of ‘rising and falling’, classify under the ten thousand things, and ‘without cease’, because as time passes, things shall change, for the good or the bad.

Heaven and earth are impartial;
They see the ten thousand things as straw dogs.
(5)

To understand this, I shall say that we’d have to get what is the superiority that heaven and earth have above everything, so see whether what they ‘think’ about the ten thousand things is valid or not. If they are impartial, meaning neutral, means that they accept any culture. And it’s true; since the Earth is filled with millions of cultures, and different ‘kinds’ of people. Yet, they see the ten thousand things as ‘straw dogs’. What I could understand of that term, it that they see these ‘things’ as careless, ‘empty’ beings. Dogs, because they might be wild, improper, messy.

I’d say the ten thousand things is the world, again. Everything that composes it. And this number will vary and increase differently, depending on what are we referring too. Shall we include the atoms and cells? They do compose stuff, that, I guess, composed the universe. But it’s sure that the things are more than just ten thousand, whether we counted every plant, every fish in the ocean, every human.

There is some kind of superiority from heaven towards ‘things’. But why are they superior for? For being neutral? Aren’t plants and fish neutral too? Well, we can certainly say that, though, humans aren’t neutral, so therefore they are allowed to be under some superior level—in which ‘they’ are neutral. I say humans are not this way, because, each, depending on their culture, only care about theirs, and tend to think weird of other customs and beliefs.

I only could find humans to be not-neutral and act as ‘straw dogs’. But then again, if the ten thousand things contain not only the physical, but as well morality and other thoughts, then they would all be biased too—favouritism, discrimination, etc. Maybe, the ten thousand things don’t include nature at all, since it’s not likely to be a ‘straw dog’. Perhaps, it refers as the ten thousand things to be more likely, less physical, yet in the mind, therefore all of them (thoughts, feelings) classifying as not-neutral.

About 'Go'

'Go' called my attention. What is so interesting about it, it’s how it’s able to entertain someone so easily, so it’s addictive, but somehow you are learning as well—makes you exercise your mind.

It makes you think, but not as much as chess of something else would. Its basic rules are quite easy to understand, so easy that the second we read them, all of us were playing and really getting into it.

It’s tricky too. The way in which you can’t have a ‘suicidal attitude’, and all the possibilities and strategies that you can use, that only one is really the correct. It’s a process game, either you start off right, or wrong. When you start the wrong way, I guess it’s hard to get back into the good road again.
It confuses me, though, the fact that we are learning this. Yet, I am existed to look more a fond into it, and play against other people in the class, though I’m almost sure I will loose, therefore need to practice more

'Night' 2nd Entry

Changes over Time

Compared to other Holocaust novels and stories I have read, Night was the one I liked best. Not only does it make you ponder deeply, but it shows how a person (either child or adult) changes; from the moment when he/stepped into the Concentration camp, till the end, in Eliezer’s case, when liberated, but rather as a body with a lack of soul.

It did shock me, specially towards the end, when Eleizer started describing death as something provocative, and so appealing. “Death wrapped itself around me till i was stifled. It stuck to me. I felt that I could touch it. The idea of dying, of no longer being, began to fascinate me. Not to exist any longer. Not to feel the horrible pains in my foot. Not to feel anything, neither weariness, nor cold, nor anything.” (Page 82)

I’m not saying that suddenly Eliezer turned suicidal. Maybe he did, but I would totally have agreed whit him, should I find myself in his shoes. At first, as every other Jew entering this “concentration camp live” along with him, they are scared.

All throughout the book, Eliezer’s goal, in the concentration camps, is to never be away from his father—to no matter what, always be together. This is, obvious, since a child tends to stay among the ones he/she feels safe with—specially in this kind of ‘things’.

“Our first act as free men, was to throw ourselves onto the provisions. We thought only of that. Not of revenge, not of our families. Nothing but bread.” (Page 109)

Rather eating over your family—though revenge is not as important—is certainly dreadful. Yet, when talking about Eleizer, we have to take into consideration everything that he has been through. I guess an environment, the way as it is, influences the people within it, turning them into this “way of being”. Eliezer may have not become evil, yet, he simply stopped loving, missing, feeling, crying, as most of the Jews, because of the lack of these in the first place, within their environment. Plus, the morality of people was replaced by something stronger—hunger and thirst. Even revenge, definitely deserved by the Nazis, was put aside.

It is much that changes, what the crematories mean for the Jews. After the 1st ‘selection’, Eleizer feared the crematories, and when the SS soldiers started making him along with some other walk towards the crematories, he wants to avoid the situation as much as he can, and even thinks of other ways of dying, rather than burning. “Four steps more. Three steps. There it was now, right in front of us, the pit and its flames. I gathered all that was left of my strength, so that I could break from the ranks and throw myself upon the barbed wire.” (Page 31)

So, killing yourself, by running at full speed towards barbed wire doesn’t sound appealing. But it was Eliezer’s choice—over slow and painful death, within the flames.

Then, after spending much more time within the camps, as the Jews start feeling less, each time, caring less about anything and only really wanting to eat, rather than survive, it is insignificant if they see the crematories or not; they meant the same thing, as any other block, since, pessimist now, the Jews, or at least Eliezer, was sure he was somehow going to die—whether ‘now or later’.

So, the book did make me think deeply about Eliezer’s life, and the treats put to it. It affects me so, because he is almost my age—15—therefore making me feel more ‘linked’, like his reactions and thought would be similar to mine. Though I sometimes doubt that. We shall never know, what the victims truly felt, and how to describe it, as we have never felt it, and hope we never will.

'Night' 1st Entry

When we first talked about the book in class, the title called my attention. Later on, when I started reading, when I kind of knew where the story was going and what it talked about, I found many ways in which I could associate the ‘night’ with the Holocaust.

Darkness. Only available during the night. Depression, lack of safety, sadness, some of the thoughts and things we feel when in a dark room, the things that darkness commonly represents. So by the title, the author probably meant darkness, and fear.

The Holocaust, a period of fear and sadness…

Now I understand how ‘night’ connects to darkness, and darkness is what the book wants to express about the Holocaust. Though for most of us the Holocaust was something completely atrocious, we have to consider others’ points of view, and see how the differences between each affects a description of the Holocaust.

The point of view shown in NIGHT is a small boy’s. Jew, growing up during the times of the developing of Nazi ideas. Captured by the Nazis, taken to concentration camps and ghettos, Eleizer’s opinion is affected, and therefore his feelings and thoughts are. By his descriptions, him, the speaker, telling us how he felt, making us realize how harsh must all this uncomfortable suspense might have been.

So it makes perfect sense, for the book to represent darkness, because as for the Jews, for Eleizer, the Holocaust was a period of constant fear and worries.

What I like about the title so much it’s its conciseness. The message is so clear, and it is some kind of foreshadowing, making the readers make some connections of what they could think the night represented. It is a nice way to call the public’s attention, too.

Missing Books of the Analects

I believe Books 9,16,19 and 20, we didn’t read them because rather, they talk about stories, and past experiences, as the Master gives his opinion on them (this can be seen mainly in Book 9 and at the end of Book 16).

Book 9 seems to be more focused on what is happening to the disciples instead of what the Master is saying. The Master falls ill, therefore leaving the disciple (Zilu) somehow ‘superior’, in charge of him (9.12).

Book 19 is different because it is somehow a summary of what has been mentioned before in other Books, and this time, being mentioned by disciples (Zixia, Ziyou) rather than the Master.

Analects, Books 15,17,18

The following citations, I used them to figure out what exactly made a gentlemen--a gentlemen. What are the characteristics, and what is it that a gentlemen should do and be according to Confucius.

15.18 The Master said, “The gentlemen takes rightness as his substance, puts into practice by means of ritual, gives it expression through modesty, and perfects it by being trustworthy. Now that is a gentlemen!”

He is always willing to do what is right (and so it links to one underlying message within the Analects: Goodness). He does what is right by practicing the rituals, shows rightness when being modest, and develops it a bit more by being someone reliable.

This ‘definition’ of gentlemen, it can be said to be very different from what a gentlemen is—in today’s societies. A gentlemen might be the man “who lets the lady first”, but then again, this gentlemen individual might be arrogant, and take his “gentleness” for granted—therefore not being a true gentlemen, according to the Analects.

What called my attention was that, later on, in the same Book, The Master mentions that “The gentlemen is true, but not rigidly trustworthy.” (15.37). He is contradicting himself, by saying that as a gentlemen is right (again), he is not trustworthy. But it mentions, in 15.18, that the gentlemen perfects rightness by becoming trustworthy. Perhaps most gentlemen have rightness as their “preference”, but yet need to master it.

17.23 Zilu asked, “Does the gentlemen admire courage?
The Master said, “The gentlemen admires righteous above all. A gentlemen who possessed courage but lacked a sense of righteous would create political disorder, while a common person who possessed courage but lacked a sense of righteous would become a bandit.”

So it is certainly crucial for a gentlemen to prefer and admire, “above all”, rightness. The Master believes that this is more important than having courage. A courageous man is capable of doing anything without fear, but without intelligence and witness, he shall be shall do anything—without thinking twice, and therefore doing wrong things as well.
Again, to be a gentlemen is to be willing to do only rightness, and wanting to master it.

Analects, Books 12-14

While I do the reading, it is many times that I start thinking about relationships between The Master, and the common people, the people that receive his teachings. Also, it happens often, when I start comparing God and the Master.

The Master is different from God, because though both are superior than most, The Master lives within the people, and is there to teach them things, on how they ought to live. We could say both of them “dislike” some people, God when they disobey him or anything he says, The Masters when that individual doesn’t make good usage of Goodness, or Virtue, or whenever they are not keen to learn, and rather focus on the fact that the yare stupid, compared to the Master.

God punishes these people, yet the Master doesn’t. It can be said that, in a way, the Master is hypocrite—doesn’t let the person know what he thinks of him/her, and he is not willing to punish him/her. Rather, the Master hopes that that person will be able to find a way in which they can correct themselves.

Though Humans prefer to punish than wait and see whether that person will correct him/herself, they are hypocrite, they are afraid to tell a person what they truly feel about them, and prefer to tell others about that person, which leads to bad situation (rumors, fights).

So the Master shall serve for us as an example of what we should be—or try. And though he might be a bit similar—at least more alike than God—he is different from most common people.

People who are smarter than others, tend to feel superior than others, and they don’t realize how the “others” might be superior than him—in any other areas, in which smartness might not be needed. The Master is smart, and doesn’t take it for granted; he is modest and makes others understand than it is not at all impossible for them to be like him. He speaks of Goodness and the willingness to learn as tips to success—so it’s not like he likes feeling superior

If the Master ever took advantage of his “power”, is that he uses it to teach others, and doesn’t speak about himself at all.

For the people, perhaps the Master is perfect. But he doesn’t feel this way. He talks about his love for learning, and implies it, therefore showing us what is needed to be successful. He does not love everyone, but is not willing to show it, letting the person realize how they’ve been bad—it is this way by which he is different from God, and similar to humans, hypocrite.

Analects Books 7,8,11

What Confucius Wants

Since I started reading the Analects, I wondered, who really is Confucius? What is he really trying to teach and say about life? How does he relate to humans?

There seems to be a stable and direct conversation among his students, and the Master, and though it’s not mentions within the Analects (or at least what I have read so far), I can conclude that in the physical, he can be quite similar to people.

But then again, how do we know, whether these teachings are being taught on Earth? Confucius is, in a way "superior" than his students...therefore making him a God. We will never know, about appearance, as it is probable for it not to be included within the Analects.

7.2 The Master said, “Remaining silent and yet comprehending, learning and yet never becoming tired, encouraging others and never growing weary—these are tasks that present me with no difficulty.”

We can tell how the Master is wise, how Good and patient must he had to be with himself, to be able to achieve what he did. He is capable of thinking extremely, by himself, capable of always learning and liking it, of encouraging others.

So, The Master differs from humans, in a way in which he can think and idealize without needing to speak, how he is always keen to learn, and encourage others. Humans, kids, do get bored in class, at school, and tend to ignore that what they are being taught is somehow important. Because of jealousy, because we are afraid that they might be superior than ourselves, we sometimes don’t encourage people to do what they want, what is right.

7.3 The Master said, “That I fail to cultivate Virtue, that I fail to inquire more deeply into that which I have learned, that upon hearing what is right I remain unable to move myself to do it, and that I prove unable to reform when I have done something wrong—such potential failings are a source of constant worry to me.”

Now this is what The Masters feels bad at doing, feels worried about it. Perhaps humans do it too, so we are similar, in some way that “both of us” make mistakes. And though we are both fully aware of them, the difference is that we humans don’t care, while The Master understands what he has done, and how gravely it is for him.

In one word, we can tell The Master is Goodness. He is giving us—or giving his followers—a good example to follow, a representation of what must be done, or what must not be done, and how if we ever do it, we shall recognize it and be worried about it.

8.9 The Master said, “The common people can be made to follow it, but they cannot be made to understand it.”

Who are these common people, so unlike him, The Master? Maybe he wants his followers to be able to understand “it”, therefore wanting them not to be common people. But then again, he can be the “it” and is asking the common people to follow…?

I will keep understanding what The Master truly wants as I keep reading the Analects.

Paraphrasing Exercise

1. "The Antarctic is the vast source of cold on our planet, just as the sun is the source of our heat, and it exerts tremendous control on our climate," [Jacques] Cousteau told the camera. "The cold ocean water around Antarctica flows north to mix with warmer water from the tropics, and its upwellings help to cool both the surface water and our atmosphere. Yet the fragility of this regulating system is now threatened by human activity." From "Captain Cousteau," Audubon (May 1990):17.

Paraphrase: The Antartic supplies Earth with cool climate, as so does the Sun with warmth. These tempetrues are carried by the sea, the cold coming from the north, and the warmth from the south. They shall blend together to provide the atmosphere and the shallow water with an average and final temperture. But this efficient method is now being altered by Humanity. (Audubon: 17)

2. The twenties were the years when drinking was against the law, and the law was a bad joke because everyone knew of a local bar where liquor could be had. They were the years when organized crime ruled the cities, and the police seemed powerless to do anything against it. Classical music was forgotten while jazz spread throughout the land, and men like Bix Beiderbecke, Louis Armstrong, and Count Basie became the heroes of the young. The flapper was born in the twenties, and with her bobbed hair and short skirts, she symbolized, perhaps more than anyone or anything else, America's break with the past. From Kathleen Yancey, English 102 Supplemental Guide (1989): 25.

Paraphrase: It was in the Twenties, when the consuming of alcohol was illegal, but was ignored, because there happened to be well-knowned places were alcohol was given. During these times, it was hard for the police to do anything, as people seemed incontrolable. Music, mostly Jazz, became popular and Classical was left behind, and people such as Bix Beiderbecke, Louis Armstrong,and Count Basie became the new idols. The "flapper" arose, with short-haired woman and small clothes. This way of being, was a new style, unlike an earlier period. (Yancey: 25)

3. Of the more than 1000 bicycling deaths each year, three-fourths are caused by head injuries. Half of those killed are school-age children. One study concluded that wearing a bike helmet can reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent. In an accident, a bike helmet absorbs the shock and cushions the head. From "Bike Helmets: Unused Lifesavers," Consumer Reports (May 1990): 348.

Paraphrase: Most of the thousands of deaths one can suffer when "bicylcing", are because of abrasions in the head. And, most of the victims are children. It was derived from a certain testing that when one wears a helmet, chances for the person riding the bike to kill him/herself are much more less. It's the helmet, that is able to protect the head for an impact. (Consumer Reports: 348)

4. Matisse is the best painter ever at putting the viewer at the scene. He's the most realistic of all modern artists, if you admit the feel of the breeze as necessary to a landscape and the smell of oranges as essential to a still life. "The Casbah Gate" depicts the well-known gateway Bab el Aassa, which pierces the southern wall of the city near the sultan's palace. With scrubby coats of ivory, aqua, blue, and rose delicately fenced by the liveliest gray outline in art history, Matisse gets the essence of a Tangier afternoon, including the subtle presence of the bowaab, the sentry who sits and surveys those who pass through the gate. From Peter Plagens, "Bright Lights." Newsweek (26 March 1990): 50.

Paraphrase: The most talented artist, when talking about catching the observer's interest, is Matisse. Of all the other painters of this era, he surely represrents the reality best. In "The Casbah Gate", Matisse shows the commonly knowned entrance of Bab el Assa, within the wall located at the southern part of the city, near the palace. Using various tones of blue, Matisse representes a usual afternoon, in the painting included the "bowaab", seating and watching for everything to be in order, around the entrance. (Newsweek: 50)

5. While the Sears Tower is arguably the greatest achievement in skyscraper engineering so far, it's unlikely that architects and engineers have abandoned the quest for the world's tallest building. The question is: Just how high can a building go? Structural engineer William LeMessurier has designed a skyscraper nearly one-half mile high, twice as tall as the Sears Tower. And architect Robert Sobel claims that existing technology could produce a 500-story building. From Ron Bachman, "Reaching for the Sky." Dial (May 1990): 15.

Paraphrase: It is said that the Sears Tower possibly is a major success within construction. But then again, it seems that builders and planners still want to go further. What is the maximum altitude a building can reach? William LeMessurier, builder, has considered and planned a building with the length of a mile and a half, which is two times the Sears Tower. Then, Robert Sobel, architect, assures that with today's machinery, a "5oo-story building" could be created. (Ron Bachman: 15)

Analects Books 4-6

Goodness in our Lives

4.25 The master said, “Virtue is never solitary; it always has neighbours.”

As this book (4) itself talks a lot about “Goodness”, I guess it could be considered a neighbour. I wanted to focus on “Goodness” and will give various examples of it, and try to explain what it is to be good, according to the Analects.

4.1 The Master said, “…If one does not choose to dwell among those who are Good, how will one obtain wisdom?”

The Master is connecting wisdom, that the people among the Good have it. To be Good though, doesn’t necessarily mean that you are smart, as there can be smart people that are mean towards others. But maybe this term—wisdom—is used differently, that it does not exactly means to be smart. I guess having wisdom in “Confucism” means rather, to know how to be good, and to act and respond in a “good” manner amongst all aspects of life.

4.2 The Master said, “Without Goodness, one cannot remain constant in adversity and cannot enjoy enduring happiness.”

It is good to be able to dwell within adversity, because these people that are not “good”, means they tend to dislike other kinds of people, prejudicing them. It is therefore good to respect whichever kind of people, as we are all equal, no matter their ethnicity, or beliefs, or religion.

4.3 The Master said, “Only one who is Good is able to truly love others or despise others.”

When you are good, you can love the ones who are good as you. You only have this right of “despising” other people when you are Good, because if you are not good and you hate someone, you are hating wrongfully, since you are the one doing wrong in the first place.

4.6 The Master said, “…Is there a person who can, for the space of a single day, simply devote his efforts to Goodness? I have never met anyone whose strength was insufficient for this task. Perhaps such a person exists, but I have yet to meet him.”

People have the capacity to be Good, to dedicate their lives towards Goodness, but some can’t even for a day. It’s not that they can’t, rather that they don’t try. The Master believes that he will find someday, this person that, as most, has the capacity, but also the willingness to be Good.

The Masters make us realize how truly important is it being Good. How it influences in all aspects of our lives, our relationships with other peoples, our souls. How our life will change for the better if we’re good.

Anaclets, Books 1-3

Virtue, 100%

Unlike the Bible, Virtue plays a mayor role within the Analects. It’s their way—the Masters’ way, to control of everything, various areas including the family, the goodness, music, and even the politics, in conclusion, virtue being the perfect way to lead someone throughout their lives.

I say it’s different from the Bible, this use of Virtue, because we could say that most of the characters within the Books we read, were controlled—their lives were—by God. It was God who decided what they should or shouldn’t do, and when disobeying they were punished. Characters such as Abraham and Moses, and Saul, were considered ‘good’ people because they obeyed God.

So far, in the Ana there hasn’t been any mention of punishment. I was able to find, though, that the punishment we shall give it ourselves, it’s like a punishment of morality, of us realizing what we’ve done wrong.

2.15 The Master said: “If you Learn without thinking about what you have learned, you will be lost. If you think without learning, however, you will fall into danger.”

The citation above leads us into another argument; we are allowed to do what we want to do, and we will not be severely punished—rather by ourselves. We can think and not learn, or learn and not think, and our punishment will be the “not-learning”. Plus, it is not literally that we will fall into danger, it says rather that we are approaching a dangerous and naïve stage. The Masters want the humans (or believers of Confucius), to be more responsible, to be able to make our own choices and know that we are responsible for whatever happens.

----------------------------------------------------------

2.21 “…Thus, in being a filial son and good brother, one is already taking part in government. What need is there, then, to speak of ‘participating in government’?”

Now, this citation focuses more into politics. ____ describes joining the government as an act of being good with your family, therefore connecting politics and family, as a very similar thing, as the same action. We can say here again, that Virtue is their way (the Masters’) to educate and teach others, and be better; you’d be involved in the government as long as you’re a good brother, or loyal son. Politics doesn’t mean having power, or having the ability to ruin a country. Rather, it’s when a community is running accordingly thanks to Virtue, for it’s people to perform ‘Goodness’, and be loyal family members.

The Analects Books 1-3 show how Virtue is employed by the Masters to give the correct teaching; how they believe that it is the correct way for people to be ‘good’. It is mentioned, at the beginning of Book 1, of how Virtue and morals are as important as the knowledge of fact.

Job Chp. 38-End

Then the Lord answered Job, out of the whirlwind, and said,
2 Who is this that darketh counsel by words without knowledge?
3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answered thou me.
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

We have talked so much about God—or Gods, when in Greek myths. It confused me, when we saw at the beginning of Genesis, that there were two different Gods.

Then I doubt who is this God, that takes place in Job. Yes, he is definitely different because (as I mentioned in my other Job entry) he lets himself be manipulated, in some way, by Satan. I guess the Gods of Genesis wouldn’t have done that, because, at least, one of them realizes the wickedness of men, and therefore bringing in the flood.

Knowing of this ‘wickedness’, why is it that this God lets a ‘wicked human’ take such an important decision as torturing someone?

Then again, in the citation above, this God himself is talking about he being the creator of Genesis.

Similar to the Greek Myths, the God within Job takes a little bit of ‘human character’ within these last pages. It happens after Job has said it all, about wanting to die, after he speaks to his friends, when God wants Job to forgive him. We could say, taking into consideration the amount of space that God’s words take in this piece of the Bible, that he is being somehow intense and annoying on Job. He doesn’t want to admit that he was somehow cruel on Job, and though perhaps, some things that Job ‘cursed’ about were valid, God whatsoever doesn’t want to admit he was unfair; that for a second, he made a mistake, like a human. He is almighty and powerful after all; he was the creator, and therefore has the right to be stubborn and decide what he did or didn’t—even if it is kind of a lie.

So God’s attitudes and actions within this part of Job, show us how God can make mistakes as well, and how—similar to humans—he doesn’t want to admit it, is ashamed.

Job Chp. 11-37

Sometimes, we let ourselves be controlled by our friends, or either trusting them. And this is not bad; it is good for us as people to learn to trust others, therefore making us more ‘socially-active’ beings.

Now, friendship and advice plays an important role in this piece of Job. After Satan is able to torture Job, and Job is grieved and angry, his friends come, and give him advice.

Though practically they all say the same thing—that Job was punished because of being wicked—they might be wrong. Personally, I believe it was God the one being ‘wicked’, for once. There was no reason why Job deserved punishment.

So, these friends are blaming Job himself for the happenings, but Job decides not to trust them;

Then Job answered and said,
2 I have heard many such things: miserable comforters are ye all.
3 Shall vain words have an end? or what emboldneth thee that thou answerest?
(From Book 16)

Though they are our friends, we are the ones who decide whether we want them to control us, whether should be believe in the advice they give us. Job decided not to ‘follow’ them, and I guess it’s okay. What’s actually not right, is the way in which he responds, rather than saying thank you, for they gave their advice at least.

He recalls they are speaking ‘vain words’, therefore, in a foolish and perhaps dishonest way.

Yet, he is saying something very truthful; perhaps their advice was more blame than helpful. Though Job wasn’t very much aware of what he did, he had done it, and it was now in the past, unable to be changed. His friends should have at least focused a little less on this inaccessible past, and actually try to give advice to what Job might do now.

So, we could say none of the two ‘sides’ were completely right. Job did wrong in answering, as the friends did wrong in helping. We must understand that as imperfect beings, everything we have and give shall be imperfect as well (Friendship). We must also try to be patient, have friends, but have a little bit of self-control and decision—since it’s your life.

Job Chp. 1-10

Favor and Manipulation

So far manipulation in the Bible has been crucial; it could be said God manipulated Moses, and at least told Abraham and Noah what to do, and what not to do. He as well manipulated the Pharaoh, indirectly, by hardening his heart, which indeed affected the decisions the Pharaoh took.

If not manipulation, the characters ask God for their help always, as David, when defeating Goliath, and Moses, too, when trying to control the Israelite mob. So there is definitely a permanent bonding between God and humans, and favours asked within—something intentionally, other times not.

Characters ask God favours for something they desire to do, but never do they manage to control them.

Now, in Job, there is a strange manipulation, because Satan is able to control God. Or at least he is asking too much, and I say it can be manipulation, cause God almighty could say no, to what Satan is asking, and it is probable, because of what he asks will affect gravely another person.

God whatsoever agrees and accepts. I wonder why God might listen to whatever Satan says. Why hadn’t he done it before? If God is manipulated, maybe he shall be considered a human too—

We can’t forget, though, that there is not greater than God. We have discussed that the Greek gods and goddesses are similar to humans, as they tend to make mistakes and fall in love and suffer. But what about this God? We can’t be sure whether he can be similar to humans, and, who would manipulate him anyway? How is it possible for Satan to manipulate someone so superior?

It is for pure jealously Satan wants for Job to suffer, to make God realize that though he was the 'strongest', and perhaps God's favorite, he shall not be the best. But—making reference to the Greek myths—power can be harmful sometimes, and power is what Satan is gaining, power stolen indirectly from Job. For a moment, when Job is depressed and thinks about dying and 'cursing the day' Satan becomes the new Job, for a moment, superior, cause it was God that listened to him and agreed with waht he had in mind.

It is “unfair” for God to favour one side; after all, he was the one who created humans, who’d later on divide and reproduce into “sides”. How could God favour one and not the other?

Samuel II Chp. 1-12

Nobody's Perfect

The Samuel chapters read today prove that NOBODY’S PERFECT.

Not even the great leaders of the past, of long ago, it shows.

David was able to defend Israel, and untie it. He was concerned about every man on his “side”, and treated his enemies with respect, aware that they could be as powerful as he was, never underestimating them. He (this is linked to my other blog of Samuel) showed tons of courage for such a small boy, when he defeated Goliath, act that gained him fame among Israel.

It is definitely difficult to have sufficient courage to be able to approach a warrior 5 times bigger than you. But David trusted God, and tried it out, and succeeded, first hard step that led him to Glory.

He didn’t take advantage of his power; never treated anyone condescendingly and respected them all. It seemed David was good alright.

And this is where Love, one of the strongest of feelings interferes, prevents. During a battle, David positions one of his warriors in a dangerous spot, so he can get killed, intentionally. All this he did because he desired the woman that man was married to, so much.

Later on he realized what he had done, and he was for once upset with himself, realizing he had sinned.

We have to remember, though, David was human and therefore he was “allowed” to make mistakes. True, not as grave, but what else can be expected? After all, he was human, and humans aren’t perfect. No matter when or where we live or lived, we tend to sin—and not only once.

Sources

I searched of each related topic on www.wikipedia.org, and then scrolled down to take a look at the secondary soucres, from where wikipedia had taken out the information.

In my persuasive speech, I'm talking about Racism and Discrimination, recalling much the events ocurring during WW2, the biggest scene of injustice and racism seen in history, the Holocaust.

Holocaust:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#See_also

Provided us with other sources of similar information having to do with the Holocaust, probably used to provide the information for them in the 1st place.

Nazi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi#External_links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi#References_and_notes

Some of the sources used by Wikipedia (in the web):
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9055014/National-Socialism
Though, this source, too, can't be considered secondary, because as Wikipedia it is an Encyclopedia, that bases its information from other secondary sources. I wasn't able to find the sources that Britannica used.
http://www.holocaust.com.au/glossary.htm

Antisemitism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism#External_links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism#References

Adolf Hitler:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_hitler#External_links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_hitler#References

Mostly all secondary sources used were biographies, either on paper, or online.

Ghetto:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghetto#References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghetto#See_also
Similar topics, they might have provided each other with information.

*I noticed not all references come from the web, there are some which are based on books or magazines as well. Yet, most are secondary sources, cause not only is it hard to find original primary documents in the web, but secondary sources explain their contents much better.

Book I of Samuel Chp. 16-END

Courage of the Small

There are different ways in which one can be “small”. Small in size. It could be said someone has a small brain, for being naïve or foolish. Linked somehow to the one just mentioned, you can have a small morality.

The problem with society is how “small” values or no values at all, are connected to a small person, to a child. A child could be said innocent, but maybe the child is courageous beneath, more than some adults. Girls act girly, but maybe be as strong as boys sometimes.

Cause one tall person can turn to be careless, and mean, as one small person can have the strongest values—not like space would lack…

We can see this kind of irony in some of Samuel’s chapters, where David, the youngest son of Jesse, is the only one with enough courage to defeat Goliath, a giant warrior from the enemy side.

David is even capable of defeating the warrior. As small, he wasn’t very physically strong, nor was he muscular enough to be able to dominate Goliath. Instead, he uses his courage and so much strong morality and self-confidence, and—as much of us wouldn’t do—trusts on God completely.

Because of trusting, because of having all his strength within his soul, David is fully concentrated and is able to defeat Goliath.

The lesson we are able to learn is that no matter who you are, how old are you, sometimes you’re able to succeed in things that others wouldn’t dare think about. This is why it is good to be original, and find an area you are stable with. There will always be a value, or feeling, favoured by each one of us.

Exodus Chp. 13-End

We Shall Behave

What I can derive from History so far, is that as time goes by, so does Human’s respect for God. I am not saying that this is happening to everyone, in all religions, but generally, to the world.

And by this I mean that people tend to disobey God, in a way that they do without morality all the things that once God—transmitted by Moses—told us not to do, or the Ten Commandments; people steal, money, ideas and others’ property. Though Piracy is mostly over, they used to travel throughout the world and steal from whichever culture. Teenagers often fight with their parents, ignoring completely the fact that they were the ones who gave them life, everything they have until now. “I swear to God” is often heard, and people use it when trying to convince someone of something that is not really that important.

Worst of all is they don’t care. Stealing something as simple as a sheep, in the past, was something completely wrong, with so much lack of respect. God himself used to punish the sinners, as stealing was considered a sin.

What does our God do today, who does that steal money, rather than sheep? God might be trying to give us some personal responsibilities, to rule our own world, but we simply can’t. It seems we ourselves are never going to learn to stop stealing, unless God himself threatens to kill us. And chances for this to happen

Perhaps it is at the end, that all of us who never had a chance to talk to God are going to be divided between Heaven and Hell. Perhaps the robbers and sinners might go down to Hell, while others, who are the minority, for trying to be perfect, will rise towards the Heavens.

It is not only Men’s fault, because in the world’s earliest days Humans were able t otalk to God, and the direct communication within them helps them be more united, to be more understandable of each other. We might forget that we are going against him, because of our lacking of communication.

Plus, there are exceptions, though, and there have always been. Along with Moses and Noah and Abraham, may Mother Theresa, and Helen Keller, and all the people in modern times that have dedicated themselves to God and religion. The ones that truly try to behave their best, always, always being good.

As we may never know, though, for the good of it, we shall behave properly and try to follow God’s orders.

Obama's Public Speaking

As I watched the video, I could conclude that Obama was generally good at public speaking. He used his hands for gestures, and made facial expressions as well, which depended on what he was talking about at the moment. He had the ability to control and attract the audience by enunciating key points and varying speed and volume, increasing it when reaching san importan point, so the reading wouldn't be monotonous.

Therefore, he does good usage of dynamism.

I was a little concerned about his content, though. He talks about his past ideas and beleifs. Perhaps public speaking is more to convince people of something, to propose something new and in the present.

Exodus Chp. 1-12

Why might God hardened the pharaoh’s heart instead of doing the opposite, so Moses could have gotten out of Egypt much faster, and easier?

We have to admit that if God was helping Moses leave Egypt along with the Children of Israel, it would have been much more helpful if he hadn’t hardened the Pharaoh’s heart each time more, each time he said no, no matter how much plagues had occurred and how much they’d damaged Egypt.

Why didn’t God facilitate things instead of making them more complex? Why didn’t he ever went and personally, to talk to the Pharaoh about letting the Israelites go? This contradicts the God-only-helping-Moses theory, can is indirectly shown in the books, everytime he tells Moses what plague to prepare next, everytime he is telling Moses to convince the Pharaoh of letting them go.

We could say, though, that God didn’t do this “hardening the Pharaoh’s heart” to0 contradict the Israelites, he might have meant for them—along with Moses—to challenge themselves. For Moses and Aaron to realize how hard was it convincing someone of Liberty, to understand how massive was this thing they were going to do, how hard was it to make it happen.

Or if he hated the Egyptians so much for establishing slavery, perhaps he wanted them to suffer more plagues and damages. So he made the Pharaoh stubborn, this way he could suffer the loss of more people and the devastation.

The plagues might have represented some kind of vision to the future, given by God, to the Egyptians; for them to realize how hard is was going to be to survive and work and build all they wanted—without slaves.

It might have been because of God’s hardening, but perhaps the Pharaoh himself was somewhat stubborn, and no matter how devastated might his kingdom have ended, he still said no, probably because he didn’t want to admit defeat—or be nice towards the people who were his slaves.

Lastly, it is easy to see that God has dominance over both Moses, and Pharaoh, he is controlling them both. As if it were some kind of two-on-two board game, where God himself was the only player. There is no one to compete with, so he decided what he shall do with each “side”. He is telling Moses to convince the Pharaoh, yet he is telling the Pharaoh to ignore Moses.

American Rhetoric

Clarence Darrow
A Plea for Mercy
delivered September 1924


Now, your Honor, I have spoken about the war. I believed in it. I don’t know whether I was crazy or not. Sometimes I think perhaps I was. I approved of it; I joined in the general cry of madness and despair. I urged men to fight. I was safe because I was too old to go. I was like the rest. What did they do? Right or wrong, justifiable or unjustifiable -- which I need not discuss today -- it changed the world. For four long years the civilized world was engaged in killing men. Christian against Christian, barbarian uniting with Christians to kill Christians; anything to kill. It was taught in every school, aye in the Sunday schools. The little children played at war. The toddling children on the street. Do you suppose this world has ever been the same since? How long, your Honor, will it take for the world to get back the humane emotions that were slowly growing before the war? How long will it take the calloused hearts of men before the scars of hatred and cruelty shall be removed?

We read of killing one hundred thousand men in a day. We read about it and we rejoiced in it-if it was the other fellows who were killed. We were fed on flesh and drank blood. Even down to the prattling babe. I need not tell you how many upright, honorable young boys have come into this court charged with murder, some saved and some sent to their death, boys who fought in this war and learned to place a cheap value on human life. You know it and I know it. These boys were brought up in it. The tales of death were in their homes, their playgrounds, their schools; they were in the newspapers that they read; it was a part of the common frenzy-what was a life? It was nothing. It was the least sacred thing in existence and these boys were trained to this cruelty.

It will take fifty years to wipe it out of the human heart, if ever. I know this, that after the Civil War in 1865, crimes of this sort increased, marvelously. No one needs to tell me that crime has no cause. It has as definite a cause as any other disease, and I know that out of the hatred and bitterness of the Civil War crime increased as America had never seen before. I know that Europe is going through the same experience to-day; I know it has followed every war; and I know it has influenced these boys so that life was not the same to them as it would have been if the world had not made red with blood. I protest against the crimes and mistakes of society being visited upon them. All of us have a share in it. I have mine. I cannot tell and I shall never know how many words of mine might have given birth to cruelty in place of love and kindness and charity.

Your Honor knows that in this very court crimes of violence have increased growing out of the war. Not necessarily by those who fought but by those that learned that blood was cheap, and human life was cheap, and if the State could take it lightly why not the boy? There are causes for this terrible crime. There are causes as I have said for everything that happens in the world. War is a part of it; education is a part of it; birth is a part of it; money is a part of it-all these conspired to compass the destruction of these two poor boys.

Has the court any right to consider anything but these two boys? The State says that your Honor has a right to consider the welfare of the community, as you have. If the welfare of the community would be benefited by taking these lives, well and good. I think it would work evil that no one could measure. Has your Honor a right to consider the families of these defendants? I have been sorry, and I am sorry for the bereavement of Mr. And Mrs. Frank, for those broken ties that cannot be healed. All I can hope and wish is that some good may come from it all. But as compared with the families of Leopold and Loeb, the Franks are to be envied-and everyone knows it.

I do not know how much salvage there is in these two boys. I hate to say it in their presence, but what is there to look forward to? I do not know but what your Honor would be merciful to them, but not merciful to civilization, and not merciful if you tied a rope around their necks and let them die; merciful to them, but not merciful to civilization, and not merciful to those who would be left behind. To spend the balance of their days in prison is mighty little to look forward to, if anything. Is it anything? They may have the hope that as the years roll around they might be released. I do not know. I do not know. I will be honest with this court as I have tried to be from the beginning. I know that these boys are not fit to be at large. I believe they will not be until they pass through the next stage of life, at forty-five or fifty. Whether they will then, I cannot tell. I am sure of this; that I will not be here to help them. So far as I am concerned, it is over.

I would not tell this court that I do not hope that some time, when life and age have changed their bodies, as they do, and have changed their emotions, as they do-that they may once more return to life. I would be the last person on earth to close the door of hope to any human being that lives, and least of all to my clients. But what have they to look forward to? Nothing. And I think here of the stanza of Housman:
Now hollow fires burn out to black,

And lights are fluttering low:

Square your shoulders, lift your pack

And leave your friends and go.

O never fear, lads, naught’s to dread,

Look not left nor right:

In all the endless road you tread

There’s nothing but the night.

I care not, your Honor, whether the march begins at the gallows or when the gates of Joilet close upon them, there is nothing but the night, and that is little for any human being to expect.

But there are others to consider. Here are these two families, who have led honest lives, who will bear the name that they bear, and future generations must carry it on.

Here it Leopold’s father-and this boy was the pride of his life. He watched him, he cared for him, he worked for him; the boy was brilliant and accomplished, he educated him, and he thought that fame and position awaited him, as it should have awaited. It is a hard thing for a father to see his life’s hopes crumble into dust.

Should he be considered? Should his brothers be considered? Will it do society any good or make your life safer, or any human being’s life safer, if it should be handled down from generation to generation, that this boy, their kin, died upon the scaffold?

And Loeb’s the same. Here are the faithful uncle and brother, who have watched here day by day, while Dickie’s father and his mother are too ill to stand this terrific strain, and shall be waiting for a message which means more to them than it can mean to you or me. Shall these be taken into account in this general bereavement?

Have they any rights? Is there any reason, your Honor, why their proud names and all the future generations that bear them shall have this bar sinister written across them? How many boys and girls, how many unborn children will feel it? It is bad enough as it is, God knows. It is bad enough, however it is. But it’s not yet death on the scaffold. It’s not that. And I ask your Honor, in addition to all that I have said to save two honorable families from a disgrace that never ends, and which could be of no avail to help any human being that lives.

Now, I must say a word more and then I will leave this with you where I should have left it long ago. None of us are unmindful of the public; courts are not, and juries are not. We placed our fate in the hands of a trained court, thinking that he would be more mindful and considerate than a jury. I cannot say how people feel. I have stood here for three months as one might stand at the ocean trying to sweep back the tide. I hope the seas are subsiding and the wind is falling, and I believe they are, but I wish to make no false pretense to this court. The easy thing and the popular thing to do is to hang my clients. I know it. Men and women who do not think will applaud. The cruel and thoughtless will approve. It will be easy to-day; but in Chicago, and reaching out over the length and breadth of the land, more and more fathers and mothers, the humane, the kind and the hopeful, who are gaining an understanding and asking questions not only about these poor boys, but about their own—these will join in no acclaim at the death of my clients.

These would ask that the shedding of blood be stopped, and that the normal feelings of man resume their sway. And as the days and the months and the years go on, they will ask it more and more. But, your Honor, what they shall ask may not count. I know the easy way. I know the future is with me, and what I stand for here; not merely for the lives of these two unfortunate lads, but for all boys and all girls; for all of the young, and as far as possible, for all of the old. I am pleading for life, understanding, charity, kindness, and the infinite mercy that considers all. I am pleading that we overcome cruelty with kindness and hatred with love. I know the future is on my side. Your Honor stands between the past and the future. You may hang these boys; you may hang them by the neck until they are dead. But in doing it you will turn your face toward the past. In doing it you are making it harder for every other boy who in ignorance and darkness must grope his way through the mazes which only childhood knows. In doing it you will make it harder for unborn children. You may save them and make it easier for every child that sometime may stand where these boys stand. You will make it easier for every human being with an aspiration and a vision and a hope and a fate. I am pleading for the future; I am pleading for a time when hatred and cruelty will not control the hearts of men. When we can learn by reason and judgment and understanding and faith that all life is worth saving, and that mercy is the highest attribute of man.

I feel that I should apologize for the length of time I have taken. This case may not be as important as I think it is, and I am sure I do not need to tell this court, or to tell my friends that I would fight just as hard for the poor as for the rich. If I should succeed, my greatest reward and my greatest hope will be that for the countless unfortunates who must tread the same road in blind childhood that these poor boys have trod—that I have done something to help human understanding, to temper justice with mercy, to overcome hate with love.

I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar Khayyam. It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all.

So I be written in the Book of Love,

I do not care about that Book above.

Erase my name or write it as you will,

So I be written in the Book of Love.

Darrow opens the speech talking about himself; about his past beleifs and all awful things he once thought. About war, he says he encouraged it. So the introduction to this piece could be said "past", because Darrow is blaming himself for what he beleived once.

Most of the speech contains "ethos", since Darrow talks about the way of being of the U.S, as a country, his way of being, his character. There is much "pathos" too, because he is admitting what the case of these two boys makes him feel, what are all the feelings involved, and what does he think about the cruelty within the world.

Of fallacies, there is much Fallacy by Tradition, because he recalls various past cases, of boys attending Court for act of murdering, and what effects did this have.

I wasn't able to find any more fallacies. This might be because Darrow is not attacking "anothred side", as he starts to blame himself, and then give his opinion about a case, that is not involving himself.

Genesis Chp. 12-28

Separation

From this piece of the text, I chose two quotes that I was able to compare as both dealt with a same theme—separation.

1Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3And I will bless them and bless thee, and curse him that curseth he: and in thee shall all families of earth be blessed.
4So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him:

Abram is instructed by God (the Lord) to leave the city, and move on with his own small group of people. Abram does and instructed; he decides to separate himself from the community within the city, and travel on their own. We can say Abram chose to obey God because not only was he loyal, but because, It is similar too, to Noah, as God is letting Abram know that he and his people are different from the rest of the people living in the city, therefore separating them and giving them benefits.

In conclusion, it was because of loyalty and becase he was going to receive benefits, that Abram chose to leave the city behind.

1Then Lot chose him all the plain of Jordan; and lot journeyed east: and they separated themselves the one from the other.

This was after leaving the city; Abram and Lot separate and each continue different ways, because of a fight that had just occur between each of their herdsmen. They thought about this necessary, or else the fighting among their herdsmen could increase to a bigger level.

Though it is not as it ends in the bible, but the effects of separation or leaving something or someone behind can be not for the good. To explain what can happen, I’ll use different very well-known examples. In the Lion King, Simba is told by is uncles Scar to abandon, because it was supposedly beneficial. It was not, because the only thing that Simba did was ran away from is fears, and he had to dealt with them later whatsoever.

Then again, by leaving behind is home, he found Timon and Pumba, and from them he learned to take life easily and relax. In Abram’s case, when he followed God’s orders, he didn’t have any struggle to survive, as with the benefits the land was always in favour of them.

Then, later on, when he left Lot, the effects aren’t as massive either. Though it is not spoken off, we can guess that for Lot is wasn’t as good, as not only did he go into the lands of Sodom, but we could say God abandoned him, cause the Lord kept helping Abram and his wife.

We never know whether the effects of a separation are going to be beneficial, or not. So it’s better to think about it before doing it, like why would I leave or not leave this person, or place, how would I miss it, etc.

Genesis Chp. 6-11

Noah, and Example
Comparisons

The Books of the Genesis I read today, mostly talked about the great flood that destroyed it all, and how Noah and his family were the only ones who were able to survive, as God chose them.

God chose Noah because of his difference from other human beings. He thought of Noah as somewhat more of a ‘good’ human than others.

It is in many ways we can relate Noah—as the ‘chosen one’—to today’s media and either stories of books.

The Harry Potter Series might be a good comparison. Talking about this young wizard who is different among others, the series makes readers understand that him, Harry, is different, or special in a way, because when young, he was the only one able to survive to the Killing Curse—somewhat immortal.

The difference, though, between these situations, is that Noah was saved, was preferred by God as an effect of his own actions; Harry, instead, just happened to be born as the infant Lord Voldemort was supposed to kill—or else he’d die.

Noah was affected for good, he was given life. Harry’s ‘speciality’ gained him harsh teenage years filled with deaths and horrifying events.

Noah’s story is similar to the myth of Aristaeus, the Bee Keeper, because, for both doing what was good and what they were told, they were able to receive a much bigger present at the end; Aristaues was looking for info on where his bees had gone, and rather he got the bees themselves at the end. Noah—once again—different from anybody—was able to live.

Noah’s story could be said to be a representation of general life, for everyone that lives. It depends on how we behave, if a huge wave or flood of misfortune will fall upon us, or rather if we are going to be protected or shielded within an ark of goods, and values.