Somewhat Different

I started the Gospel of Luke. It seems to be quite different in the beginning compared to the gospel of Mark. The story starts out with John, the Baptizer, being born by an old couple, with the help of God. Unlike the Gospel according to Mark, it explains the birth of Jesus. Then, I noticed how similar the birth of Jesus was to that of John. They were both born through the power of God, and they both taught the righteous way to heaven.

Besides that, both gospels seem to be similar, just that the gospel of Luke tells us more stories of Jesus' miracles. One of them involved a centurion's young servant being cured from a far distance for believing that it will, in fact, happen. Jesus said:

"I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel." (Gospel of Luke 7:9) and the servant's sickness went away.

So yeah, cool.

Rich = Bad or Good?

I've noticed something: I seem to be questioning myself about something every time I read a story from The Bible. I just finished reading the gospel of Mark. It's sort of a short story about Jesus's adult life and when he resurrected. It was fun to read but I started wondering in my thoughts when Jesus said:

"Go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven." (Mark 10:21)

This means that we have to sell whatever we have and give to the poor to be good people. I guess it makes sense since it makes others happy and that's a good thing. So, I guess I agree. But, Jesus said something else right afterward:

"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." (Mark 10:25)

This is telling us that it's harder to go to heaven the richer we are, therefore we have to give our wealth to others to be good people. After I thought for a while, this didn't really make much sense. You're supposedly doing something good when you are giving your wealth to others. But, the people that receive the wealth obviously become richer. And, the richer you are, the harder it would be to go to heaven. So, wouldn't you actually be doing something bad when you give your wealth to someone else since you're technically blocking his chances to be a good person and making it harder for him/her to go to heaven? I don't know. Maybe I thought too much about something fairly simple.

Anyways, just like the usual, I end up with more questions than answers. Maybe I'm just trying to think too much and complicating my life. Whatever, I'm done with the gospel. This one was actually pretty interesting for me since it talked about Jesus and the miracles he did. I hope I get to read more from The Bible later on, hopefully without so many questions in my head.

Bread of the Great

Compared to other stories that I have read in the Bible, I think I'm actually enjoying Mark's gospel. It's not that the gospel is very exciting and fun, but I just find it interesting. I'm not exactly sure why, though. Maybe it's because the story talks about Jesus and his doings.

Anyways, I read a few more chapters of the gospel, and it was pretty much about more of Jesus's incredible miracles. He stopped a storm, walked on water, and even revive a little girl from the dead. I, of course, wasn't surprised since it's Jesus I'm talking about here. But, what did catch my attention was the part when Jesus asks this question:

"'How many loaves have ye?' And they said, Seven." (Mark 8:5)

It's just a bit odd. If Jesus has the power to satisfy the hunger of a bunch of people with any amount of food (just like he did in chapter six with five loaves of bread), then why does he need to know how many loaves of bread there are? Why does he bother asking if he can somehow divide the bread with his divine powers to fill up the bellies of any population? I mean, he still would have fed everyone even if he had one loaf of bread, instead of seven. Maybe he did that on purpose to somehow teach others something he wanted to, but I'm not quite sure. But whatever, I was just wondering.

So, I guess I should keep on reading the gospel since I'm only halfway through. As I said before, the gospel is not that exciting but sort of interesting to read. I hope it keeps on like this.

Starting to Question the Great

I recently started reading a few of the first chapters of the gospel of Mark. It's obviously very different compared to the Tao Te Ching since it's an actual story (although Jesus teaches other people throughout the story like the Tao). The gospel begins with Jesus already grown up and narrates the story of him. In the gospel, he, of course, does all these different kinds of miracles and does things that are supposedly impossible. I wasn't really surprised about anything since it was a bit obvious that Jesus had the power to make miracles happen. But, this sentence made me realize something:

"And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?" (mark 4:41)

Why does Jesus have so much power? Well, I mean because he's Jesus, but isn't it a bit unfair? Isn't Jesus supposed to treat everyone equally? Then, why does he have the right to have these divine powers that others do not? These questions just suddenly popped up in my mind while I was reading.

Oh well, I only read the first part of the gospels, so I would obviously have many questions. I guess I should keep on reading and maybe these questions might be answered.

A Balanced World

Finally, this is the end of Tao. The rest of the book wasn't that different compared to the beginning. It just had a bit of confusing riddles, but that's pretty much it.

The most important word for this book, I'd say, is balance. The Tao says that everything should be kept in balance. I do agree with this. Too much "bad" would lead the Earth into a world of evil. But, an excess of "good" will eventually lead our world with no good because there always has to be a "bad" to notice the existence of "good".

So, everything has to have an opposite to be kept in balance. And, we are not only talking about the Earth but the whole universe. Everything relies on some sort of balance. Let's look at Saturn for example. The planet, Saturn, is well known for its famous floating ring around it. The ring actually consists of many little rocks and pebbles orbiting around the planet. The reason why Saturn moves the way it does and the reason why the rocks orbit around it is because of the attraction between the rocks and the planet due to gravity. If they are not next to each other the way they are, Saturn would move differently and the small rocks would be scattered all around space. So, I think this represents a sort of balance.



Anyways, I thought the book was interesting. It was very fun to read in the beginning and later it got a bit boring. But overall, I enjoyed reading it.

Perfection

I came to a conclusion: Tao Te Ching is very repetitive. Everything seems to be talking about and giving examples of two opposites that balance each other. It sometimes felt like as if I was reading the same thing over and over again, but this part caught a bit of my attention:

"Do you think you can take over the universe and improve it?
I do not believe it can be done.
The universe is sacred.
You cannot improve it.
If you try to change it, you will ruin it.
If you try to hold it, you will lose it." (Tao Te Ching 29:1)

I like this part since it's telling us that the world is perfect the way it is and that it's better to leave it intact. It's not telling us that we can't change the world: It's telling us that we shouldn't. But, that's not the only reason why I like this quote. I like it even more because I sort of realized something while reading it. I realized that the book wasn't teaching the readers what to do to have a good balance in the world (since balance is said to be a good thing in the book). Instead, I noticed that the book actually tells us that the world is already balanced and perfect the way it is and that we shouldn't do anything to change it. So, the book wasn't actually meant to teach people what to do, but rather to teach people what not to do.

Anyways, even though I thought that the book was interesting, I wouldn't entirely agree with it since I don't think that everything in the world is perfectly balanced the way it is.

Forget for Good

The teachings of Tao go on. They all seem to point out the fact that everything in the world is balanced and good the way it is. Almost everything is written in some sort of riddle which makes it a bit harder to understand. But, this part in particular confused me a lot:

"When the great Tao is forgotten,
Kindness and morality arise." (Tao Te Ching 18:1)

It's not that I don't understand what the quote is saying. I just don't know why it's said. Here, the axiom is saying that Tao should be forgotten to obtain kindness and morality, and since kindness and morality are good things, this axiom is telling us that the Tao should be forgotten to obtain something good. I thought that the teachings were supposed to be telling us to follow the way of the Tao, not to forget it. So, this part was kind of confusing and it left me wondering what message the text was trying to give us.

So, that's how it is. I like the teachings until now since the book is divided into very short pieces of texts. A new chapter (or whatever the numbers stand for) starts every time when it's about to get boring

Balance

The book of Tao Te Ching is similar to The Analects since it teaches the reader about good morals. But, the ideas and the way it's written seem to be very different.

The ideas in The Analects were taught through dialogues between "the Master" and other characters. Tao Te Ching though, was sort of written in second person since it's like as if the author was directly talking to the reader through the text. Confucius thought that the most important things in life were family and elders. Tao Te Ching, on the other hand, seems to have some different kind of thinking. Most of Tao Te Ching seems to be talking about the existence and the importance of balance in everything. Here's an axiom that I found interesting:

"All can know good as good only because there is evil." (Tao 2:2)

Here, it's saying that good only exists because evil exists. So, technically good wouldn't exist if evil didn't exist either. This means that evil has to exist in this world in order for it to be balanced in some way. There should be as much evil as there is good. If there is no evil nor good, then the world wouldn't really exist, would it? I'm not sure, though. But, the text indirectly suggests that there should always be some kind of balance between good and evil, just like any other things in this world.

In the Beginning

Does The Bible tell us the truth of how humans were formed? According to The Bible, God created the first man out of dust from the ground and was named Adam. Then, he created the first woman, Eve, out of one of Adam’s ribs. This could have happened, but there’s no solid evidence that it actually did. It only tells us that something supposedly happened.

The Bible isn’t a very good source to rely on for evidence of the creation of man. In fact, it has many little flaws and parts that don’t match that contradict each other. First, God created the heaven and the earth. It’s a bit unclear since it’s said as if the Earth and heaven were the only things that existed in the whole universe. Then, it says that God created light and darkness on his first day. How do you know which was the first day if there was no day before he created light? If that was the first day, then what day was it that God created the heaven and the earth? It’s just not very clear. Not only that, but God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh. If God is perfect and so powerful, how is it possible that he was actually tired? Is God not perfect after all even though he’s superior to us? It is never explained.

But going back to the creation of man, The Genesis tells us that Adam and Eve were created by God and they were the first humans to ever exist on Earth. All the generations that came afterward were descendants of Adam and Eve. But, is that true? Here’s a short part from The Genesis of The Bible:

“And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch.” (Gen. 4:16)

How is this possible? Where did Cain’s wife suddenly pop out of if Adam and Eve only had Abel and Cain at the moment and Cain had already killed his brother, Abel? Did she just magically appear? Not only that, but according to the text of The Genesis, God doesn’t seem to always know what’s happening:

“And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper? 10 And he said, What hast thou done?” (Gen. 4:8)

According to this, God either didn’t know that Cain had killed his brother or he didn’t do anything about it even though he knew. Either way, the text is telling us that God has flaws, but The Bible itself tells us that he is perfect. So, The Bible isn’t a very reliable source of evidence to prove the creation of man.

Someone like Charles Darwin, on the other hand, did have actual evidence of evolution and how ape-like creatures could have evolved to humans throughout many generations. I’m not saying that God doesn’t exist or that The Bible is bad. I’m only saying that The Bible doesn’t have solid proof to justify its text.

Belief to Tradition

The Master keeps on teaching through his confusing, but yet very deep sayings. One part that I really liked was this part:

"The Master said, 'I would prefer not speaking.'
Tsze-kung said, 'If you, Master, do not speak, what shall we, your
disciples, have to record?'
The Master said, 'Does Heaven speak? The four seasons pursue their courses,
and all things are continually being produced, but does Heaven say
anything?'"

Here, the Master doesn't directly say why he prefers not to speak, but in a way, he does justify why it is okay not to speak. In a way, it's like as if the Master is telling Tsze-kung to not question him and just accept what he thinks and what he tells him since Heaven can't be questioned either.


These are sort of like laws and rules for Confucianism, and there are many of them in the book of Analects. But today, it's more of a tradition than a religion. Japan and Korea are both practice Confucianism. Since it's more like a tradition, we grow up with Confucianism as if it's something very normal to everyday life. It's not something that is practiced, it's something that is the way it is. There's just no other option. In Korea (and probably Japan also), even the language is based upon it. People in Korea have to talk in a different form of language when talking to adults. We can't just say "hi" to an adult. We have another way of saying "hi" and another way to say almost anything else. They can't plainly call others by their names either if they are older than them. This, of course, is to show signs of respect towards elders. We even have to bow to them when we say hi or goodbye.


I, being Korean, also have to do all this among other Korean people. It seems very strict and tiring, but since I grew up with it and since that's how the Korean culture is, it's very normal to me. I don't even need to think about it. So, I think Confucianism should go on, at least in Korea. It's hard to stop it anyways.

So, going back to the Analects. I think it was an interesting book to read. I wouldn't recommend others to read the whole thing unless their very interested since most of the teachings seem to be a bit repetitive. But besides that, it was nice to read.

On and On

The Analects keeps on going with more teachings from the Master. I got a bit bored after a while since most of the sentences started with "The Master said" and some ideas seemed to repeat itself again and again. It wasn't that bad though, because all the ideas was very deep and thoughtful, but I didn't like some of the phrases that suggested indirect messages like this one:

"There were four things which the Master taught,-letters, ethics, devotion
of soul, and truthfulness." (Analects Book 7)

Here, it's saying that the Master was truthful. This means that he only said the truth. So technically, this is telling us that everything that the Master said was right. That's what bothers me. It's like as if the Master is put up laws about what humans should and should not do. To me, it's more of an opinion than a fact. I might agree with most of what the Master says about what's right and wrong, but I don't think he has the right to tell others what to do and what not to do.

Anyways, The Analects keeps on going on and on just like before. Something else that I like about it though, is that it doesn't have a chronological order. So, I don't need to read it from the beginning to the end in order to understand it.

The Master Says

The Analects seems to be a very interesting type of book. It has a different style compared to most of the books that we are used to reading. Instead of a narration of some kind of story, the book is more like a list of mini lessons and teachings. And, all these teachings are taught by "the Master". I'm not sure who exactly who he is, but almost every quote in the book is told by "the Master" and most of the things he says teaches some kind of moral. I, of course, don't agree with all of them but they all seem to be very deep and thoughtful. Here's one that I did agree with:

"Riches and honors are what men desire. If they cannot
be obtained in the proper way, they should not be held. Poverty and
meanness are what men dislike. If they cannot be avoided in the proper
way, they should not be avoided." (Analects Book 4)

Here, I think that "the Master" was trying to point out the unfairness of the existence of bad people with wealth and good people with none. He, just like me, thought that if someone obtained wealth through unjust ways, he/she didn't deserve it. And, if someone escaped poverty through unjust ways, he/she didn't deserve it either. Most people would agree with this quote, but it's a bit unclear. It doesn't tell what exactly it is that we have to do to obtain something in "the proper way". I mean, sometimes we wouldn't know whether something is "proper" or not.

Anyways, whatever. Maybe I will understand more if I keep reading.