Saturday, December 20, 2008
Friday, December 19, 2008
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Can gaze no more
Look! The shadow of a squeaky door!
See! The essence of a wall no more!
I close my eyes, just can see
Every piece where ought to be
I take my leave of all the gloom
Retire to one single room
Ah its sweet familiarity
Shall be lone comfort unto me
This was written like 8 months ago. I was rather proud of the rhyming scheme.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Harry has to destroy 6 horcruxes, and he's the seventh right? So....the night that Voldemort's spell rebounded from harry, and he didn't die, what happened then? Surely a part of him died and his hrocruxes kept him alaive and so he used one in GoF when he regained his body?
Also, then, how do you actually use Horcruxes? Do you "use them up?" so to speak, so that if Voldemort used one, Harry wouldn't have to destroy it because it's piece of soul was transferred to Voldemort? If that's right, Voldemort's soul was split into 9 pieces over time. Sort of. Or harry Destroyed a horcrux that was already dead, whihc we know didn't happen....don't we?
OR, i think i just struck gold, instead of killing the piece of soul, it just sort of ...transferred it to Harry for some reason. A period of ten minutes made me think about that more between gold and instead and its not actually gold, but helps explain only seven horcruxes.
Voldemort's not really dead!!! He has one bit of soul left!!!
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Don't get me wrong. I know that she gives money to charity often (so does oprah). Like she had the whole dunk for breast cancer thing, but...that doesn't really justify throwing more money at people who are rich enough on a global scale. Even though it's nto her money she's using to giev the stuff away so if she didn't get the crystal watches there woudln't be the stuff/moeny anyway....Whatever. Scattered thoughts are brilliant hey? its someone's money and someone should be putting it to much better effect.
So that's it for today. Short and sweet. Any longer and you'd be as annoyed as alyssa when she sees people waste money that could go to people who need it.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Evidence: Protestants believe in the trinity (God the father son and holy spirit are seperate beings, but also one) and no one can actually understand this fully. I've heard heaps of analogies that try and get our heads around it but we just can't. So when at church i hear a 5 or 6 year old child say "but Jesus is God and God is Jesus! But that doesn't make sense..." i'm just amazed that they can know that already and be comprehending the magnitude of the idea to - some extent.
You can talk to a child as an equal. Just, think about it please and don't play down their IQ just because they're a decade or more younger than you.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
Now imagine this...(and i know the different arguments here, but hear me out) anequal number of babies being killed each year with no government intervention. I know that some argue about when it becomes a baby, but just think about it yeah? Got that, that many babies (i'm talking born): there owuld be absolute public outrage.
Now, because that human life is only a few months younger all of a sudden its cool, we're okay with it, not even a little concern. I just don't know how people can draw the line because, going back to self-actualisation, sort of, how would you like it if someone classed you as not human yet (at the moment i'm talking you're bron) and just decided to kill you for it? I'm guessing not that much (dont' say i wouldn't feel cos i'd be dead...). It's the same for you i'm sure before you're born. You are still you.
Personally, i just can't comprehend how people can take another's life, that's just something i don't think we can judge.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Then i thought....
If it's what feels good, it really doesn't feel good when others miff you in favour of themselves, like getting in first on the lollies or something. You think that what feels right/good is for them to offer them around first. This all falls through though when your the person that can 'get in first'. So there's the whole, "do unto others" thing, but only while you're being served which is a massive contradiction, or so i think, in which case, there is no right in what our natural desires want, because they conflict. That just shows the need for higher moral code, which i believe comes from God.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Thursday, November 06, 2008
People will have different ideas to you, and what i hate is that many people seem to be incapable of sharing they're own view (on anything) without trying to convert the person they're talking to. We need to be able to just throw ideas out there, into the big black vortex of 'maybe it'll chaneg their mind, but maybe it won't, and i don't mind either way, it doesn't affect me, i still hold my views.' People have different ideas and that's somethign that we all need to accept. Whatever it is that's created those ideas - a different life experience, belief system or simply personality - you can't change. You can add to it, maybe get them, to think but we all have to respect other people's views.
This comes particularly the day after the election in America, as indicated by my expectedly cliche title. I hold this position particularly after experiencing the effect an election campaign can have twice in one year. Parties and people have different policies they support, eys, but here's my take on it (after all that preamble):
We cannot force ourbeliefs and priorities on other people. We can't. And that's where i see slight issues with democracy. I have nothing againsta democracy, i do bleieve it is a good political system. The people vote in a praty/person and that party/person makes decisions about the country. I will be one of those people that says youc an't complain about a policy if you voted for the party, even if you didn't, because its a fair system. But in this system, you still have a group of people effectively forcing their beliefs and priorities on a whole nation.
I dunno, but it seems flawed in some major way that a small group of people can take what they see to be true and apply to others lives. True, it makes no great difference in countries like Australia and America who is in power, butas i say it's fundamental. Some religious people would say they have the right to enforce their world beliefs on others as they blieve that they know THE TRUTH. I am a christian and am tempted to say that soemtimes, but people would react the same way to me that i woudl to a .... another religion saying that. The person doesn't believe, they dont' have to live that way. Hey, i think the Bible is the truth, but i can't make everyone in australia live that way just because i think so. I can try to tell them why i think so and get them to think about it, but i will not enforce what i believe on others.
What has this to dp with democracy? Lots in the many controversial issues floating around. You all know what they are, i don't need to tell you. What i think is this: if everyone making the decision claims to believe the same thing (think Anglicans and minister appointment - we all claim to believe the Bible) go ahead and press your point, but if a collection of people al with different ideas about life, god, justice etc, (like government), just think about it. I'm not going to be president or PM ever, so what i propose that i will do is to simply hold my beliefs close to my heart and act on them when voting etc. Re-examine them yes, it would be foolish not to, but nto "Bible-bash" (in chirstian circles), only throw my ideas out there for considereation.
Hope i've been clear in what i'm saying. Just please don't get angry at people who don't think the same way you do. I'll just close with a quote, it sums this up nicely:
-Do not think of knocking out another person's brains because he differs in
opinion from you. It would be as rational to knock yourself on the head because
you differ from yourself ten years ago. -Horace Mann, educational reformer
I think this guy had a sensible head on his shouders.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
I don't feel like writing much, so my basic idea is that increasing the number of hours you drive for on your L's does nothing - unless your learning as you do about safety. See, for young people, having more experience won't make them safer, it will make them more confident and more likely to crash i reckon. As soon as kids are alone in a car or with friends, they'll drive stupidly, unless they know the dangers and have been confronted with the possible consquences.
SO basically i reckon it's been a waste of everyone's time to increase the number of hours to 120 - driving more does not equal driving safely. Instead, the RTA would probably do better to invest in mroe of the safe driving programs liek the one i and my classmates did today. That and more rules that are effective - like the one pasenger after 11pm or p platers rule. Maybe it should be extended? I dunno. But what i do know is that more than doubling the compulsory hours just means people will lie i think and won't fix much of the problem.
I mean really, I do 120 horus on my Ls. If you crash on your green P's you've probably done 120 hours by then too - has it helped at all? The main factor is the supervised driver, which will stop the kids being so stupid. The hours thus have no effect cz you can still be supervised for only a year if you get your hours done. I believe that if the RTA really wants to address this problem, kids shouldn't be able to drive alone until they're like 19 or so. Really that's the crux i reckon.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.
In modern times the first to speak out for prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of capital punishment, for women's right to vote, for death with dignity for the terminally ill, and for the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion have been freethinkers, just as they were the first to call for an end to slavery.
The Foundation works as an umbrella for those who are free from religion and are committed to the cherished principle of separation of state and church.
I found just this part of the site interesting for a couple of reasons:
- Moral progress is a subjective phrase and you can't say that atheists have therefore made moral progress because, for instance, I don't believe thatlegal abortionis moral progress. Just because they do doesn't mean it is. If you have no God, you should have no definate moral code. [editor's note: apparently their moral code comes from natue, but i'm not goingto go into that]
- what do you mean by the ambiguous death with dignity? Euthenasia? Because i don't think that's moral progress, see above.
- "Just as they were te first to call for an end to slavery." Its funny but all the big names in slavery abolishen that I've heard of have been christians, but you know whatever. Even if they were the first to call for an end to slavery, it means nothing if you don't take action, like Wilberforce did. Shall i quote James at you???
- The cherished prinicple of state and church. You know, they should really make it clear that it is their cherished principle, because i don't liek the ambiguity of such a subjective phrase. Either be objective, or make your subjectivity explicit.
I read a couple of things on the site, or read a little bit of them. But i got so annoyed at them taking the Bible out of context and not trying to understand it that i gave up and am now about to go do homework. Think about it yourself, but it's no good me writign about it hear, you really need to talk to atheists and agnostics about your faith.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Let's think about it. Economic crisis hits (starting in America - interesting point isn't it? But i won't go into that now), everyone's (i.e. every nation's) economies fare badly. But Australias economy was pretty strong to start with (i heard stronger than Amercia's - i think) so we're actually not hit as badly, AND the management of our banks has been better. Something about an 80% cut-off and definately somethign to do with the more socialist way our country is run (i.e. gvernment owning/running of banks or the reserve bank or something) so that now, according to my dad - which is not the best source but you get the picture - the Australian and Swedish banking systems are the most stable in the face of this crisis.
So who cares which party runs the coutnry because they pretty much run it the same and either way i think we're lucky to be living in a country that has such good economic management - whether it be liberal or labour (and don't get confused byt he stupidity of the party's names).
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
I really couldn't explain why she wouldn't find the book interesting; I could think of no answer that would satisfy her. I just knew she wouldn't. You know how that happens? I do only too well. It's like that incredibly frustrating situation of trying to explain the meaning of a word when you know what it means but you just can't put it into words. Gah it's so frustrating.
So I've decided to come up with a response to the questions whose rightful answers can't be formed into words. The silence of a telepathic trying to convey their thought shapes. That should work well enough, let me know how it goes!
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Firsta nd foremostly, i'll explain myself away. Actually, i'll onlye xplain myself away - it'll probably answer for the others as well.
REASON NUMBER ONE:
Yep, that's the number one unerlying reason. I can't be bother, because now i only spend 10 minutes a day on the computer (on average) and i can't be bothered to come up with a blog post, because i know there are much better and mroe worthwhile things i could be doing (primarily as no one reads this anymore). Some of these more worthwile things belnd into:
REASON NUMBER TWO:
Shh I'm Reading
I enjoy reading more than blogging and these holidays i have about 10 books to get through. See where i'm coming from?
REASON NUMBER THREE:
Exams and Study
I like to think exams kick-started this whole "not-blogging" thing, because a week before i simply didn't have time. That's when the computer lots its place in my life (which is very nice still thank you). BUT i think i probably would have stopped blogging anyway. Human nature and all that, eh Miss Marple?
So there you have it. My lame reasons for not blogging (except for reason two and three which i take as very valid, so really only reason one). Yes. Hope everyone is enjoying their holidays cz i sure am. I made cookies, and now i'm reading terry pratchett (which is always one of the best things about holidays). In fact, i think after these holidays, youc an probably only reasonably expect a post from me once a month at the most.
Good luck surviving Blog of a Girl.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Sorry for all those readers of mine who are addicted to my posts (ha!) but by now they've probably had their withdrawal symptoms and are comfortably missing my frequent posts.
Maybe i'll ---
No, i know i won't
EDITOR"S NOTE: Now this post is too late, i scheduled it and then i scheduled one before it so it is now *5 (well now 6).
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
I read this recently. It was in a book that im not going to name because i dont want anyone else to suffer the mix of emotions i did when reading it.
T. S. W in a letter to The Sunday Times in January 1965:
I take it you already know
Of tough and bough and cough and dough?
Others may stumble, but not you,
On hiccough, thorough, laugh and through.
Well done! And now you wish perhaps,
To learn of less familiar traps?
Beware of heard, a dreadful word,
That looks like beard and sounds like bird,
And dead: it’s said like bed, not bead –
For goodness’ sake don’t call it deed!
Watch out for meat and great and threat
(They rhyme with suit and straight and debt)
A moth is not a moth in mother,
Nor both in bother, broth or brother,
And here is not a match for there
Nor dear and fear for bear and pear,
And then there’s dose and rose and lose –
Just look them up – and goose and choose,
And cork and work, and card and ward,
And font and front, and word and sword,
And do and go, and thwart and cart –
Come, come, I’ve hardly made a start!
A dreadful language? Man alive!
I’d mastered it when I was five!
The English language is so cool.
Yes you can label me a nerd for that.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
And it hit me that, to the non-believer, Christianity probably does look utterly bizaare. that we hold these books written at least a millenia and a half ago as the truth. Especially those books which would be seen as crazy hallucinations or simple songs.
See, the thing that was so striking about this was that to me it is the ultimate familiarity. This book brings me comfort not only in its message (which is, of course, the ultimate comfort) but also, in a smaller way, simply through the writing. When i hear someone read out a section of the Bible, a great sense of famililaritya nd comfort surrounds me and am a person who likes familiarity a lot.
I just like to hear the Bible read. I have grown up surrounded by it and it is an essential part of understanding where i am today. It takes an extra extension of though to understand how another, non-christian, non-religous person really, may see this book that i hold as the ultimate authorty in my life. I guess i just take it for rganted that people with accept it maybe just a little less than i do, and that's an incredibly ignorant or thoughless position to hold.
Friday, August 01, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
I had to go looking for something. And i found it. An interesting little fact that i can discuss monologue-ically.
On the 23rd of July, 1829, William Burt patented the typographer, which was the first typewriter.
And i thought, 'Oh.' You see at first i was going to skip over ti but then i went
'Wow...maybe if he hadn't invented it, i wouldn't be typing on the same keyboard right now. Like I'd be a keyboard, sort of, just not really a keyboard. You know?'
Ah but then an argument i think I've heard elsewhere popped into my brain. It said, 'Don't be daft! [interesting etymological roots for the word daft you know]. Someone else would have invented the typewriter, obviously. This, William Burt just got in first! Course their typewriter would have been maybe slightly different, but history finds a way, doesn't it?'
You see, if Edison hadn't invented the light bulb [or one of those other hundred of things he invented] someone else would surely have seen a need for an item that emitted electrical light fr as long as you needed it [no matter if it took a different form than the light bulb, per say].
And as this is a confusing subject, i now have to stop. But just stop, every July 23rd, and remember that on this day in 1829 William Burt patented the first typewriter and helped us all to an easier way of life in some way or another.
Also remember this:
Ont he 23rd of July, 1914, Austria-Hungary issued an ultimatum to Serbia following the killing of Archduke Francis Ferdinand by a Serb assassin. The dispute led to World War I.
This ultimatum was quite unfair. Poor Serbs, they just wanted independence. Plus you know, it was just an individual! come on Austria, it at least wasn't proven that the government had anything to do with it. Who would be that stupid [i mean in governmental terms, obviously the individual who's name escapes me was] Wait, lots of governments are that stupid. Stupid, Alyssa!
Monday, July 21, 2008
1) "There is a story of Auberon Herbert – I do not know whether it is true or not,
but I do not mind connecting it with his name ... which I always recall with a
sense of satisfaction and encouragement. He was staying in his country home, and
some visitors were announced. He received them with perfect good manners, and,
after a cordial welcome, he said to them, ‘And now what would you like to do? –
we are reading.’"
- Viscount Grey, ‘The pleasure of reading’
2) "Lu-Tze, who was not holy and therefore could think unholy thoughts, occasionally wondered whether the chanting monks were chanting anything, or were just going ‘aahaaahahah.’ You could never tell with that echo."
- T.Pratchett, 'Thief of Time'
3) "‘Dojo! What is Rule One?’
‘Do not act incautiously when confronting little bald wrinkly smiling men!’
‘Good rule, Rule One,’ said Lu-Tze."
- T.Pratchett, 'Thief of Time'
4) "‘You read a lot,’ said the behatted kvetch indicating the two novels he had open. He nodded, because there was no denying it and because he didn’t want to put up the ante or a conversation.
‘Books aren’t life.’
‘No, they’re better,’ he replied and flipped through the thirty – two library cards in his wallet to remove his one credit card to pay."
- Tibor Fischer, ‘Bookcruncher’
That post was really just for me. Im sure you'll think it's boring. Oh well, is it not written, "such is life?" (Anyone i know, anyone read any of the Discworld series?)
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
EVERY OTHER COUNTRY ON THE LIST GETS IT NEARLY 2 WEEKS EARLIER!
Gah flipping movie people. Hate em all, specialy America (haha it has a special place in my heart)
Sunday, July 13, 2008
The appropriately beautiful or ugly sound of any word is an illusion wrought onMax Beerbohm, writer, critic, and caricaturist (1872-1956)
us by what the word connotes.
I've been pondering this quote for a long time. Since it grabbed my attention in the AWAD emails i get and made it the part of my email signature which i always erase anyway (only certain people get it) actually. The point is...so it actually hasn't been a long time. I have no idea why i said a long time, that was stupid, so was just putting a space before a comma, but whatever. THE POINT is that i've been thinking about it and then another little post prompted even further thought ( as seems to be hapening alot lately) so that this post, was born.
I think its true.
To an extent.
The extent being when the words you are comparing don't mean the same thing (as an aside, that's the correct spellign of mean int hat context isn't it? Gosh i prove Miss. Tate theory worng. But only to an extent. I'll not tell you to what extent, that's too divergant). See, i've seen his theory proven right in all the owrds i can think of but amicable and amiable are two that i ahve a problem with.
Hmm i think i just foudn a porblem with this whole post. Connotes could in this case mean "means" right? So... the definitions of the above words (from dictioanry.com of course) are:
1.having or showing pleasant,
good-natured personal qualities; affable: an amiable disposition.
3.Friendly and agreeable in disposition; good-natured and likable
And this is where i'm proven worng because i thought they meant the same thign btu the slight differences in their meanings affects their connotations (which actually cannot mean "meaning" because a connotation is a suggestion besaides the primary meaning.
am·i·ca·bleAnd really they pretty much are the same word and can be used mostly inter-changably, but shades of meanign suggest i was wrong. I [the whole 'i' thing is important, becaus ebeauty is in the eye of the beholder isn't it?) see being amicable as having great potential to just being a show,a facde, a mask of pleasantness and friendliness (see the word characterised? [i 'corrected' the spelling]). On the other hand being amiable, you are likeable and firnedly and pleasant and don't only have the potential (less potential too i think) to be a fraudster, but in more likelihood actually possess these qualities. (see the word having). Also, lovable or lovely is an obslete meaning, suggesting (connoting) actually possession of "likeabliity."
Characterized by or
showing goodwill; friendly; peaceable:
Characterized by or exhibiting
friendliness or goodwill; friendly
And of course i think amiable is a much more lovely looking word than amicable. Personally, i belive that it is due to not only the connotations of the words (previously explained) that lend this illussion, as Max Beerbom suggests. I think it aslo due to the letter c and its not so fortunate placement within the word amicable. I think, mis-placed, that the letetr c can mark the difference between an ugly word and a beautiful one, not that amicable is an ugly word but it's ot beautiful.
If you don't believe me just take the letter 'c' out of the word amicable.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Why did school have to go and ruin youths' perception of what an essay is? I'm not going to turn this into a hate post about school (hey i like school - well mostly) but i am going to again condemn society.
You (as in general 'anyone' you, not second person you) mention the word essay to another school kid these days and they go "oh that's so boring." Trust me i know. The various people I've told that I'm studying the essay this year in ext English and who are in school just reply with "oh.....how fun" and search for a new topic. Why did i limit that to school kids? A lot of people have a warped perception of what an esssay is. (For my problem with school writings click here). I'm not saying the things we write in school aren't essays, i just want people to know that good essays exist. As in, essays that are interesting to read.
Despite the fact that whilst reading Montaigne's works, they felt dense and difficult to get through (oh i now have to read 60 more pages of him, joy), i feel an affinity with the man (again, see our ext english class); same with Betty Churcher (i got quite excited when i met her again on TV the other night). Bacon is more like a trusted advisor (but nice all the same, just not as friendly) and the essays we read recently by ..... [name forgotten] were instantly likable (to me anyway, and as such i decided that the guy must be quite amiable [which is a much nicer looking word than amicable don't you think?]). I haven't forgotten James either. We just got to know each other better through the recent acedemic studies (i think i understand the book i little better too). The point is, however nutty you think i am from all this, essays are really ..... good things to read. They're not just what we do at school: they are an exploration of any topic the essayist wishes to explore, which actively engages with us, the audience, and allows us to get to know the author
Is it just me or is hat more worthy of a trifling facts post. I thought about it, but its too....random for trifling facts. You know, there is a line with that blog, however thin it is, it exists and i know what it is, but ..... okay totally just backstabbed myself.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
2000 - J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" was released in the U.S. It was the fourth Harry Potter book.
Just thought i'd let veryone know that. I mean, this is a significant day: he eight anniversary of the release of the book that marked the middle of our journey with Harry. Okay, its not really significant but i wante dot play it up. I still remember the day it came out......And that book has one of the best covers in my opinion.
Do you ever hear people say in my personall opinion? How stupid is that its like triple tautology!
See yas later, alligators.
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Now, in the holidays, i get bored and (strangely for me) lonely much quicker, and i think that i just made the connection. I used to be able to go and 'seek comfort' as it were with some made up friends, and they were all i needed to have fun. But, well, its not like i engage in the active story-games of the imagination any more.
Instead, i can now live vicariously in the holidays and seek comfort in the imaginary characters of books.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
I find it quite fascinating to look at the way people gain power. Mostly its by getting into another’s/group’s good books and then seizing power and doing what you want. Take for example Napoleon. He worked his way up the military ladder, proving that he was absolutely brilliant at what he did. Once he was there, he staged a coup (not along the pre-defined lines above but we’ll get there), sort of like on Sea Patrol II, the coup, and then worked a new constitution where he ended up with the most power (out of the three man strong executive) and, here’s where we get it, asked the people what they thought. He asked the people what they thought about him being Consul for life too, and emperor. But, here’s where i think out and realise something else/
Napoleon gained power first under the pretext of civilian approval, but really he scared some people into it by making the votes public (i.e. not secret, and if you voted non you just knew the police would harass you later). Or it was a mix of the too. He also censored the press so his image was preserved and to limit opposition.
So there’s what you learnt about Napoleon today. Sorry, despite my previous statement it was really inevitable you learn.
Now in 1984, by George Orwell, we don’t really find out how the Party gets into their position of power, but I assume it was by much the same method, except, you know, no coup. So, let’s imagine here, they’re a party yes? Then, noting the absence of a democratic process in 1984 society, and the non-existence of other parties, I’m led to assume that they once were a party – a commie party. They get voted in, slowly collect power, and here’s the cool bit, maintain power. Despite how utterly depressing the book was, I thought the concepts actually were interesting, but Georgie boy really should have just written an essay :). They essentially, I believe, maintain power by controlling thought (no, not really, by controlling everything, but this is the important one). And they control thought through language. I thought that whole concept was quite intriguing. How did Orwell think that up? I mean, once your exposed to the concept, you see it would probably work. No words to express thoughts? Well you can’t think them, just grasp in a frustrated manner at the fleeting thought and give up cz its too hard. I dunno, read the book, its cool.
Finally, Othello. I didn’t really want to talk too much about this, just confide a great discovery I made the other day that relate quite directly to the Shakespearean play.
Svengali: A person who, with evil intent, tries to persuade another to do what is desired.
Except the definition I had even more fully described Iago the villain. I must say I liked Iago. Oh he’s evil and maybe I just liked the voice on the tape, but he’s an intelligent character too. You have to admit, he’s clever. He, like Napoleon, works his way into favour with Othello and then EXPLOITS him.
And that’s my story all. Not really what I said it would be but, wasted 20 minutes. Farwell.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
I'm not going to come up with examples because the list would be humiliatingly short, but its true!
Who cares if you get less than you expected on that test?
Who cares if the national team loses a match?
Who cared your favourite book was mad einto a bad movie?
Really, everyone just needs to get over it. Oh i'll admit i need to too, no claim to righteousness here, but seriously.
The world needs to get over itself - there's things more important than money and fame.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
There was a certain incident, on a certain day, that changed the lives of these five friends quite significantly. I have sworn to secrecy about it though, and it is with much regret that i can only continue this story by telling you one thing: there was a disagreement between two of the friends over a death. I shall leave the rest to your imagination (to my uttermost regret you must know) but please do not imagine that the two friends who had an altercation were the owl, tiny little ant or little robin, or that the death was any was the little robin's.
There is one more thing i can and must tell you. The tiny little ant may have once escaped a stereotypical beginning to his story, but there was no way to avoid a stereotypical beginning.
This much i may tell you and this much i have. I complete my tale with an urge to take pity on every tiny little ant you see, for as we may never be certain of whether our tiny little ant has begun existing, still is existing or indeed has shuffled off this mortal coil, any you see may be him, and the events of that certain day have left him in much need of any small amount of love you could possibly spare him - his mind has become much less than it once was.
Finally i beg you, do not judge him for becoming a stereotypical ant.
But you can judge him for pushing his friend out of a tree.
Well that's more than i thought I'd write. I want you to disregard any change in the writer's tone, because I'm sure there's been some, but I'm in a very 19th century mood today. Hey, sorry if you hate the tiny little ant know, but this is the Way it is.
And with that i bid you farewell after the completion of a story that was begun almost two months ago. Had anyone remembered it? I hadn't - until i remembered it :)
Thursday, June 12, 2008
How did they know which way to move,when to fling up a hand, when to spin, when
to jump? When to look into their “partner’s” eyes, when to look at the floor?
There was nothing written down, did it accord to some chord change or eight bar
measure that I, in my hot discomfort And pop illiteracy simply could not hear?
-Stephen Fry on dancing
Last night i listened to Stehen Fry's second podgram, which you can read here (hopefully that link works...). Anyway, the point of this very short post is that Stephen Fry is a very funny man and i suggest you either read or download one of his podcasts. See, normally ilisten to audiobooks or podcasts while i do my maths homework, but i can't listen to Stephen Fry because he distracts me so much and i end up just sitting there laughing.
Plus, in the one i listened to yesterday he talks about Pride and Prejudice for like....one minute :)
So yes, that's my recommendation for the day.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Benford's law of controversy, as expressed by science-fiction author Gregory
Genford in 1980, states "Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real
So, you know i was thinking:
a)How true, how true - generally
b)Mathematical models can be applied to psychology (because that's what I'd categorise this little nugget of "wisdom" as)??
My answer to the latter question is
Because, well, human nature is unpredictable. You can't generalise a statement like that for all personality types. Some may be very contained and polite. Of course then you could argue that it simply refers to inward passion in the least - which would be comparative to other amounts of "passion" a person feels during their life - and that "polite" people are simply very good at containing tempers.
But no, i think there are people with mild characters, hence less inward passion. But the comparative thing keeps coming back at me - surely there's an issue over which someone would get heated up about? and comparative to other things it's a greater amount of passion - but i still think you can't apply maths to human nature - but I don't want to critique the quote too much, becaus ei actually think it's clever.
This, while we're on the topic (or more rather I'm on the topic), puts me in mind of a book, which i haven't read, but do know this much about: this guy gets dumped and tries to develop a formula to predict who will end a relationship and when. For your own satisfaction i will tell you that the book is called "An Abundance of Katherines" and is written by John Green (much as it would have delighted me to see some people's frustration over not knowing...)
Sorry about the probably abundance of unnecessay quotation marks littered throughout this post, but i had a thing for them today.
So does Wollognong hospital for that matter.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
And dont worry about telling me who it is, i like the amusement.
Friday, June 06, 2008
Gay death knell for the Anglican Church
So the gist of this article is basically that, firstly, in North America a "450-year old communion has little hope of holding together" - a little ambiguous because of the the use of the word "a", but anyway. Secondly, that the conference being held soon in Jerusalem is not about homosexuality, as many would probably believe. But now that I've read SMH's Good Weekend, this post is about more than just that article.
Today i was eating breakfast and spied the paper. I generally pick up Spectrum first to look uselessly at the book section (useless cz i get there and realise i don't care cz i don't know the authors and I've discovered a little dislike of the words section). But today i saw, on the front of Good Weekend a picture of two bishops and the title, "The Great Schism - is this the end of the Anglican church as we know it?" This immediately pricked my interest a) because I'm an Anglican - not a high Anglican, an evangelical Anglican and b) because of the article i just introduced you to. So i read the three page article on the issues in the Anglican Church, littered with quote from Peter Jensen, and i think it was great that i did before writing this. It's made me think much more carefully about the issues and how i approach them and what I'll say.
I've decided not to say too much, just a little.
Firstly, I just want to say that this is a tricky issue, but i think it's being handled well by our diocese. The North American church is really arguing that this whole thing is about homosexuality and the Good Weekend article seems to think so too.
"The church has held together despite Charles Darwin, the bells-and-smells
insurgents of Anglo-Catholicism, the collapse of the British Empire, the
discovery of the pill, the arrival off divorce, women as priests and even
women as bishops. But the gathering in Jerusalem (GAFCON) is intent on
'scattering' this communion of 75 million believers because the North American
church has gone soft on homosexuality"
This leads straight into my next point, but before that i have an underdeveloped thought to jot down. Thankfully John Woodhouse (principal of Moore college)makes our stance on homosexuality clear later on in the article, when he says that
. . . there is forgiveness available through Christ, but homosexuals who persist inOf course, there's going to be misunderstanding of what we believe when its communicated to the wider non-christian community, but i think that was important to say. It also needs to be said that every sin is equally wicked in God's eyes, homosexuality is not worse than any other sin, which non-Christians often think we believe, i think. This issue is getting the Anglican church a fair amount of media time, and i just think, following on form the previous thought, that as we are speaking through this to those who aren't of the faith, we need to be careful of what we say and how it may be interpreted.
having sex are wicked sinners breaking God's law. . .
Following straight on form this and the quote form the article (before John Woodhouse's) is another point i want to make. The article in the Good Weekend seems to think the issue is over homosexuality, they made that rather explicit in the above quote. They are thus blatantly ignoring what Jensen says later int he article. "This dispute is not really about homosexuality. It's about authority and who runs the church. To most of the rest of us, God runs the church through the Bible." For that i say thank you Peter Jensen, but also, if the article is going to talk about this controversial issue, it needs to not take sides. It just looks really bad to me that they would do that. Also, i wouldn't take sides if you don't fully understand all the issues there are int he church, which i think this article doesnt. There's way more it than just morals - its an issue of theology and who is taking God as authority, and who is bending him around the society of today.
And that brings me into my last point. I just wanted to comment on the situation of the Anglican church in Australia. For those of you who don't know, the Sydney Anglican diocese is, as far as i gather, generally the only major Anglican diocese that is totally evangelical (bible believing) and not steeped in tradition. I admit i don't know heaps about the functioning of the national church but that's what i do know. I've come across some ridiculous comments made by Anglicans from other areas in Australia, such as the chief Anglican in Australia (sorry i forget his name and title) who's aid that we have no single authoritative text. My brother and i couldn't believe that the guy who said that and more was head of our denomination in Australia. Also what i found in this article. "But in many eyes its [the Sydney diocese] is hardly Anglican at all. Visitors from Melbourne worshipping in a Sydney parish might think they've wandered into a protestant chapel: where are the crosses and vestments? What's this demand that all believers be Born Again in Jesus Christ?" This is really, to me, unbelievable.
- The Anglican church is protestant. The basis of it is being saved through faith alone and being born again.
I'm not going to try and explain myself further, other than say how much such statements irk me, because I'll end up saying something wrong accidentally and i dont want to do that.
So here is whee I finish, an hour later than when i started and ready to finish staring at a screen and go do something useful. Sorry, productive -> for school. I wasn't calling my blog useless! Hope I'm not entirely misunderstood. Sorry id didnt really talk about the article. Ha ha, i just got tied up int he issues surrounding it. Later dudes.
- Adidas boycotts sheep mulesing
- Gay death knell for the Anglican communion
So, firstly, a little game called guess-what-the-article-is-about. So that's really easy for the first, but even i don't understand the second one and I've read the article. [Editor's note: "Gay death knell for the Anglican communion" coming at you tomorrow or Sunday, because this was long enough]
Adidas boycotts sheep mulseing
The gist of this article was that "Adidas is the latest clothing business to refuse to buy wool from Australian sheep that have been mulsed."
Main Entry: mules·ing
Function: noun: the use of Mules
operation to reduce the occurrence of blowfly strike —
I have a couple of points to make here. First, about the definition, i just want to say that if that "operation" is named after a person, it needs an apostrophe. If that be the case, I'm deeply grieved at the poor editing of dictionary.com.
Secondly, i would have absolutely no problem at all with this if it weren't for what they said later on in the article. Okay that's a big lie, but i would have much less of a problem if it weren't for what they said later on in the article.
So everyone thinks that mulesing is this huge thing because its animal cruelty. Yeah, and its not cruel to just let a sheep die an "agonising death." We even figured out an alternative to cutting the tail off, a nice little clip, but Adidas doesn't like that either! Here's news:
It's a sheep.
I think we can safely say its brain isn't big enough to be too worried about a clip hanging off its backside that's stopping it dying. Really.
Here's the clincher. Adidas protests that mulseing is animal cruelty when its for a good cause, but they're happy to shoot kangaroos just to make boots. Which is better: to simply shear sheep that are being saved form death and are too stupid to realise it anyway, or shoot kangaroos for leather. Wool grows back, kangaroos die to give up leather.
And no I'm not one of those naive people who doesn't know the kangaroo is a pest. Sure shoot 'em, as long as they don't die out. I'm just not a fan of hypocrites, who do what they criticise on a higher level.
Lastly, this women argues in the end of the article that it is:
"Outrageous the Federal Government opposed whaling but sanctioned the "cruel"
kangaroo kill that supplies Adidas."
Despite the fact that she's president of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council, I'm going to ignore that, cz i get the vibe that she's just an animal loving vegan. I know that's not fair but i don't care. Whaling is killing an endangered species; kangaroo-ing is killing a pest. As long as the government has their eye on how many are allowed to be killed, it's all sweet mate.
Sorry, not lastly. PETA (People for the Ethical treatment of Animals) insists that
"there are methods other than chopping and clipping such as sheep bred with
naturally bare breech areas that do not need to have flesh cut away to protect
them from burrowing blowfly maggots"
Sorry, a sheep that's intentionally bred differently to how it was originally designed is not "natural" to me, and i think I'd rather just clip the sheep and shear it than mess with God's creation. Adidas needs to just give it up and buy our wool, or fail that, at least juts avoid the hypocrisy. I really do think they doth protest too much.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Firstly, for any fans of House that read my blog (and i know there are none, unless someone surprises me...): how good/sad was last night?? and now we have to wqait till September at least before any new episodes!!
Secondly, i was thinking, my posts are becoming really quite random, quick and about nothing. Is it boring you, my poor little readers? Cos if you like, i could take an article from the paper each day and write what i think about, maybe that would be more exciting, except the news does get repetitive, like, being all about US presidential candidates. Actually, i have somethign to say on that, in reference to Obama's announcing victory today (or yesterday or a month ago, i can't keep up), but Hillary not conceding. The news said something about her not conceding spreading more thoughts of her wanting to be something....okay ignore that, i didn't listen enough. Let me know if it impacts the integrity of my next statement though please.
JUST CONCEDE ALREADY.
We knew ages ago you weren't going to win Hillary, just give up and take the next best deal. Vice? See that's the thing about American politics (here we go again with the America and the government): ITS STUPID. Its putts people belonging to the same party in competition with one another, when they hold the same values, so it becomes a competition of personality, and i spit ont he whoel process. Not really, but again, if you wnat to be president you have to be rich so you can promote yourself and you know you just need money which totally detracts from the basis of the republic's values: that any American citizen can be president. Oh sorry we forgot to mention that you have to be rich, which means essentially you have to come form here, here, or here, oh and the people won't elect you if you're a women or black, unless you're the only sane choice from the Democrats after a Rupublican has held office and incurred so much hate from the people that they wont elect another Republican for at least four years (.....) because our country is still so steeped in the discrimminatory ideals that Charles Darwin gave us all an excuse for.
You can see my frustration?
Goodnight, i have school tomorrow.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
they make my blog feel so lonely
Or then again
are they just an excuse
for my little lonely blog
Truth or lie
Reason or cover-up?
Oh well, gotta learn about the Romanovs, later.
Not a plea for comments by the way, just a subjective observation. =)
Monday, May 26, 2008
I think it might help me understand forces.
Because you know when you're tyring to get something, and you think you're getting it, but then something vital slips way just as you get so close - !
And no one will explain! (i.e. my two textbooks) they just go well its not like this.
WELL HOW ARE YOU MEANT TO WORK IT OUT?
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Emilia passed through the archway into a sphere of silence. Only the gentle rustle of a page being turned or a book being coaxed from its home disturbed the quiet. She breathed out slowly and took in the row of shelves stretching far into the depths of the room.
She would call it a room, but it hardly seemed to fit the description. The space was far too large, the ceiling seemed twenty feet high and the walls were so very far apart. It was just a space, filled with books. Emilia closed her eyes in pleasure before strolling down one aisle of shelves crammed full of the books.
“The reading of all good books is like conversation with the finest men of past centuries,”[i] she whispered, as she thought of all the great books that surrounded her, and all the conversations she might have. Name after name rolled by her on the spines and with them the brilliant minds which lived on only in print, but would yet share so much.
A title caught her particular attention and she slowly slid the volume from its place. Emilia let it fall open and breathed in the unique smell of an old library book, a much loved book. Its cover fell comfortably into place, and the pages were worn, there was the occasional dog ear, and tiny, scrawled notes here and there in the margin. It had certainly been read countless times and had filled many with borrowed emotions.
Emilia flipped through the book once more before placing it back in its rightful place and setting off again. If language were indeed the archives of history[ii] all one needed to discover the ages was a room full of words, and here she stood amongst centuries of the world, each one just waiting to be glimpsed. So many stories waiting to be told and so much wisdom longing to be imparted.
Emilia looked to the end of her aisle where a middle-aged man sat engrossed in a book. An elbow rested on the arm of the chair, hand thoughtfully stroking his beard, as his eyes made their way slowly down one page, then another - the movement of a hand - and another. Occasionally Emilia would see his beard twitch and lips curve in amusement, and just the once heard a quiet chuckle to himself.
That man was entirely absorbed in the world of that book, that conversation with a fine man, that acquaintance with a long-gone era. And in that man and his book, Emilia saw the essence of a library encapsulated: the quiet, the delight, the one thing holding so much. She allowed herself one more moment to take it in, then turned and passed through the archway once more.
Behind her, an inscription over the entryway to the silent room read:
“Here is where people
One frequently finds
Lower their voices
And raise their minds”[iii]
And on the other side, the world’s many voices grew loud once again.
[i] Rene Descartes
[ii] Ralph Waldo Emerson
[iii] Richard Armour
All the stupid formatting got stuffed up, it took ages to get it right at the end. But anyway. There you go.
I was really reluctant to put this up, so I'm schelduling it. Ill forget and then BAM it'll be up for all to see.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Oh What dismay
Poor Little Readers
Snuggled By Heaters
Have Only Four Posts
To Read With Their Toast
Who said Rhyme had to make sense??
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
- I wanted to post
- Yet i didn't want to continue my story
- I wanted a quick post
- I should have gone straight to my room but instead i came to the computer
So now that you know my status of once again avoiding homework by writing to you lovely people, I'd like to just quickly relate an amusing situation i found myself in the other day.
As a rule, whenever we visit my grandparents, my grandmother invariably thinks of a book to lend me and proceeds to do so. So, on the day in questions (mothers' day in fact) my mother says "See if there's any books on the shelf you'd like to borrow" - not really in reference to my grandmother's custom just because I like books and they have books. Anyway, my grandmother follows me in, randomly recommending books but all the while saying she doesn't know what I'd Like anyway, whilst still managing to put two books in my arms to my wordless consent. The amusing part is that she was looking at the shelf thinking of any good books and says "this is supposed to be good," while sliding out a book with a nice, smooth, pure white cover, two words printed at the top and two at the bottom, a picture right in between. Ah yes fellow English students, any clue as to which book this is? None other than Sally Morgan's "My Place". I just stand there and muter, "oh well, i just read that for English" smiling slightly at her as she puts it back, whilst inside i am laughing rather more loudly and thinking of the time when someone else i know had said that it was "supposed to be good. Did you enjoy it?"
So, that's what i found a very slightly amusing story. Sorry to bother you!
Monday, May 05, 2008
Because of our Modern History lesson today, i'm rather confused abou Darwin's original theory. So he thought first about adaptation right? With those brids on um the island he visited. But then that developed survival of the fittest, which leads to animals evolving into one another?? And he did include humans in it didn't he? Or was that really, as Miss.T said, added by later scientist. Or was the source's claim that we read today that he did apply it to humans but we twisted it so we could abuse 'lesser humans.' I was gunna say that's technically not abusign the theory but we don't abuse animals because they're less evolved than us? And does the theory imply that al animals shoudl be evovling into the same thing? or you know, the thign that's best for its particular habitat, except that that would mean the ocean should be inhabited by one type of animal.
Besides the whole thing is screwed up because the variety of animals shoudl get less not more - genepool --> shrink. But then if what i said above was true, it would grow then shrink which is scientifically impossible anyway.
God's so much simpler.
In that respect anyway :p
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
an essayist makes no claim to an exhaustive technical examination of a subject;
rather, they seek to record their thoughts and rumination son a topic at hand
for a general audience.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS!? (If we take it as law, which it obviously is not as my sheet from ext. English from which i got this says believe quite clearly, but it fits with the general contemporary definition of an essay) Well . . .
I insist on telling English teachers NSW over (and every other English teacher who will make us write essays full of what and how about texts and areas of study), we, the students, as essayists, should not really be exhaustively, technically examining a subject. This is exactly what you guys all make us do, with the intended audience being very small. Actually, the intended audience comprised only of our one teacher, and possibly other students, but simply so that their own works, aimed only at you also, may be improved.
We could make this argument to the board of studies . . .
Actually, i think the main idea would be to not call these essays essays, as they do not really fit the definition of an essay. (Talk to our Extension English class for an exhaustive , somewhat abstract, contemporary definition of 'the essay')
Thank you and goodnight.
I'll be off looking for some creative inspiration . . .
Once there was a tiny little ant in existence. This tiny little ant was posisbly not in existence anymore - one can never know these things - but was, at his time of existence, very happy that his story had managed to escape a steroetyped beginning.
He was an unusual ant, not bent into the cliche form of living only within the world of ants, but rather, feeling himself not to be an insignificant figure in the world's history simply due to his size, had a broad world view and was a particulalrly opinionated tiny little ant. He had delved into the world beyond the anthill and no longer kept contact with his inferior peers, or for that matter, any of the ants he had once known.
The tiny little ant now lived in a tree, with an owl, as he had heard they were wise creatures (and many of them was called a parliament, so he had heard, and he thought if he could voice his opinions to one, then his illustrious career as an "agent of change" in the world might begin). There also lived in the tree a stick insect who would, along with the carmeleon which also lived there, provide the tine little ant with hours of amusement through their acts of ingenious camoflage. Lastly, there lived a little red robbin. Such animals usually lived in North America, but this was no ordinary little red robbin: she did not like to conform, and so had moved to the most extreme opposite she could bear. This happened to be Australia, where the owl with which the tiny little ant lived, lived. The tiny little ant and the little red robbin got on splendidly because of their mutual hatred of appearing to be a stereotype, but the red robbin had no other strong opinions formed, and looked to the tiny little ant for his inevitable opinion on anything for which the little red robbin thought he needed an opinion on.
All in all, this group of 5 very different animals got on very well, the owl keeping to himself in the topmost branches of the tree for most of the day, the stick insect and carmeleon coming up with new trickss involving ctheir camoflage with which to startle passing seagulls (whom they enjoyed teasing immensly) and the tiny little ant and the little robbin coming up with clever games with wich they pass the days away (for although the little red robbin had no strogne opinions, she was a very clever little bird).
Hope you enjoyed part oen of my story!! I've decided to publish it in instalments, whenever i run dry of material for blogging, but still wish to post. I envisage it as being very exciting to discover what will happen to the tiny little ant and his friends (of which the little red robbin is indupitably the most developed character thus far). Watch this space!
Friday, April 25, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
(He's a jazz artist fyi lol)
I have been doing so much writing lately and nowhere near enough playing live so last weekend I thought I would go and play a little lo-key gig in a local piano bar. The kind of place where the drinks are expensive and the piano player provides a little background music for no other reason but to justify the drink prices. The perfect venue to run a few of the new tunes and the occasional lounge version of a classic 80's hair band hit, purely for my own amusement.In the years leading up to having a record deal I have done a lot of these kind of gigs [probably a thousand] and had a lot of funny conversations with patrons in various states of lucidity but what happened the other night has got to be one of my favorites.Mid way through my second set I had a woman approach the piano and abruptly ask me, "Who sings that LOVE ME FOR THE COOL song?"I sheepishly responded with, "Is it Mark Shol…tez?" She immediately replied with, "No, that's not it." Her friend then piped in with, "Sholtez. Mark Sholtez. That's it." "Can you play that song? You know. Baby what you've got to do. . . ."Part of me wanted to tell them that it's my song; but they were so quick to respond I thought I would just play along and see what happened. I offered to "give it a go" and as I started singing the first verse they both seemed happy enough and walked back to the bar singing along.When I finished the song the first woman came back to the piano and proclaimed, "That was pretty good. Not as good as the original though. That guy has a beautiful voice. We've seen him in concert a couple of times." She then asked me if I knew where he was from. Trying desperately not to laugh I replied, "I'm pretty sure he lives here in Brisbane."She looked around the room and then back at me, dropped a five-dollar bill in the tip jar and said, "He wouldn't play in a place like this though." She then walked out of the bar never to return.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
It's really actually quite scary, see, i wasn't born in 1984 but, i travelled back in time and wrote this then brought it back with me and posted it so i could say i wrote it in 1984.
By happy coincidence, it's also about the book '1984' which i was reading today and there was a tragic line in it.
The destruction of language is a beautiful thing . . .
And i thought oh my this man is insane. In fact, thought i, i should have to land one right on this man's face if he were real and survived to the year 2008 and i met him. Ah such a sacrilegious thought for there is nothing more terrible than the destruction of language. He proceeded to say that the great wastage of the language was the verbs and adjectives but they are some of the greatest words!
In fact, it is the creation of language that is a beautiful thing. I would have it no other way.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
http://aponderingheart.com/blog/?p=353#comment-1076 then (or perhaps before)
Not to go out and bible bash or get arrogant christian angry, but i hate to seebiblically incorrect views, supported witht he bible, reply to them, then get corrected and told im biblically incorrect (which i found quite distressing to read). So, eric and paul, the only two that read my blog but also two biblically sound guys, if u read this just i seekign some other opinions. Okay.
So that first link up there is an article by this home schooled girl in America called Jocelyn or something. She has very different ideas to me and my primary concern is her idea about God's perfect will for women. Not saying I'm not open to other ideas, just . . . i don't wanna give the wrong idea, so below is my reply to her post, and following her reply to my comment.
Sorry to sound very critical in this comment, i think it might just be my nature :)I just wouldn’t want any christian to read their beliefs into the bible. Having only skim read much of this article and part one i may have got the wrong idea, forgive me if i have, particularly in relation to this first point:I hope you are not condoning the belief that men are above women and that we are not created equal; we are created equal but differently. And, although i would need to check this, i believe that men are to be in authority within the church, in regards to teaching the word (something being sadly ignored increasingly by many churches). Your mention of college (or university here in Australia!) being full of unbelievers and partly reason not to go worried me. Our great commission in this world is the preach the gospel to all! How are we to do this if we don’t know any unbelievers because we keep away from them out of fear of influence? (I believe genuine personal relationship to be the most effective form of evangelism.) Influence by the secular world is a concern, but having non-christian friends is not the only way we are influenced by a sinful world. we live in it!I also must, finally before i earn myself the reputation of an arrogant, severely opinionated Christian (perhaps too late?), emphasise that i don’t believe God’s single, utmost role for women is to be married. (1 Corinthians 7). In fact, the previously mentioned passage states that we can do more for the work of God single than we can married! Which appears to some to be against marriage at all - but it’s not. Many women never do marry, and without the cares of a husband or family, that woman can focus wholly on the work of the Lord, such as in mission (not to say only single women may perform mission successfully, but it’s certainly, in a sense, ‘easier’). The most important work that God has set before us is to go into the world and be a light - to have such love for ‘our neighbour’ that our utmost concern for them will be their eternal future and as a result we will share the gospel with them.Again, sorry if this sounds overly critical, but i just wanted to express my concerns. I would be deeply concerned if i have expressed any of this in such a way that it appears biblically incorrect. Plus there’s probably lots of typos sorry, i just can’t seem to type without them.So anyway, just an attempt at constructive criticism, please don’t be offended.
HER REPLY TO ME:
Hi there Allison [Editors note: okay, she called me allison. My name was there cut and copy! lol],Thanks for taking the time to comment and state your opinion. Here is my reply:
“I hope you are not condoning the belief that men are above women and that we are not created equal”First of all, men and women are created quite differently. Some things they are equal in, some things they’re not. Men and Women are absolutely spiritually equal in God’s sight. We are both sinful, and we both need God’s grace to be forgiven. However, the Bible portrays clear and distinct roles for men and women. Men are to be leaders, and women are to be followers. The Bible does NOT say that women are to be submissive to all men. Girls are to be under the authority of their fathers and wives are to be under the authority of their husbands.
I definitely agree with your statement here “men are to be in authority within the church, in regards to teaching the word (something being sadly ignored increasingly by many churches)”. You are absolutely right. This is clearly stated in 1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
I think that the whole idea of “going to college to fulfill the Great Commission” is one of Satan’s lies to get people into the world, especially young ladies, when satan knows their place is at home. Satan is the Father of Lies and he has been working on his techniques of conniving Believers into such situations and beliefs for AGES. You said you didn’t really read my post, and I would encourage you do so AND read the comments.
The Lord can use ANYTHING for His glory. He is God, but that doesn’t mean it’s his PERFECT will for your life!
Are you saying that because you’re not going to a public place you’re not fulfilling the Great Commission? I believe that in everything I do and say, if it is of Christ, it will be a light and a witness that Jesus Christ is reigning in my life and that he is Saviour of ALL! Besides the fact that I know of several young ladies who are taking college at home.
Please make sure you read these comments:http://aponderingheart.com/blog/?p=353#comment-1073http://aponderingheart.com/blog/?p=353#comment-1076
As for your comment on i don’t believe God’s single, utmost role for women is to be married. The verse you referred is often used out of context. The verses before Paul talks about remaining single are about man and woman being married, and THEN he says “I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.”, which is him saying it’s not the Lord’s commandment or words. Those are Paul’s, a human’s, words. Not God’s. In the beginning God made woman to be the helpmeet. That is purpose and design. It is God’s plan for woman to marry.
In the Beginning God made Adam and then he made Eve to be a helpmeet to Adam, to her husband, and to bear him children. That is our purpose as women. Not that we are lowly, worthless creatures because we ARE NOT! But did God change our design since the beginning? No.
I don’t believe in single woman being missionaries. I believe that if she is to go to another country, it will be with a man and she will be his helpmeet in that ministry. Just because many great women have done works for the Lord, doesn’t mean that was His plan for her. The Bible says there is God’s acceptable will, his good will, and perfect will (Romans 12: 2). Obviously I would want the perfect will but that is not always possible. Read here: http://aponderingheart.com/blog/?p=367
I think you are mistaken about your view on single women. In Genesis 2:24 says that a man is to leave is wife and mother and cleave unto his wife and they shall be as one flesh. So if you’re not going to marry, you are to remain under your parents, doing everything to serve the Lord.
Please don’t ever believe that being a wife and mother is burden, which prevents you from focusing on the Lord. I know a great many women who are married and are fully devoted to serving the Lord, and they do. Besides do we realize that when Jesus gave the GC he was only talking to his disciples? Not to the multitudes? Now, this doesn’t mean we aren’t to share the Gospel, because we are. However, it doesn’t mean that everyone is called to the work of a missionary and go out into the world. The Bible says they will know you are my disciples if you love one another - which means if we are Christians people should be able to see that in EVERYTHING we do.
I really do thank you for taking the time to write out all your thoughts on the matter, but in some areas, I think you are truly misinformed and some things you are Biblically-incorrect.
Blessings to you!
So hopefully you can see what I'm worried about?
The verses before Paul talks about remaining single are about man and woman
being married, and THEN he says “I speak this by permission, and not of
commandment.”, which is him saying it’s not the Lord’s commandment or words.
Those are Paul’s, a human’s, words
First I'm worried at her saying anything in the bible is not god breathed or the word of god. I see her point but . . .
I also don't really understand what she means when she says that the verses about remaining single are about being married??If anyone has an idea? But I'll say that the verses that deal with being single are about being single. We've had a sermon on that passage and it was very clear i thought.
That is purpose and design. It is God’s plan for woman to marry.
I can't coherently form a reply to this statement. But I'm sure its not correct. Please help? Because that is her big thing. She goes on to say that because women are to be submissive and be married we can't go to college or be missionaries while single.
College? University? So while we wait to get married, we hang around home and suck our parents money while we could be out earning a living of our own. I can't remember the reference (sorry) but Paul tells possibly the Thessos (?) to make sure they work by their own hands and are not a burden on anyone. What if the women never marries? Sorry Jocelyn, but you seem to think everyone will marry, but they don't. What happens when her parents die? What does she do then? she's a burden to society.
Plus, as i said in my reply to her article, I don't think God's perfect will is for women to get married! It's for us to tell everyone we can about Him!! If we are held back form doing this because we're single (as in being a missionary) what does that say? She also said:
However, it doesn’t mean that everyone is called to the work of a
missionary and go out into the world. The Bible says they will know you are my
disciples if you love one another - which means if we are Christians people
should be able to see that in EVERYTHING we do.
Which was in reply to my comment on her saying college was full of non-Christians but i said if we cut ourselves off from non-chritsians, how are we to evangelise? No not everyone is to be a missionary, but we are all called to spread God's word, which means in a sense we are all called to be missionaries. Get me? What use is it to say that people will see we are christian by our acts if we don't SEE non-christian people at all. I wasn't saying your actions can't show our faith. In fact i said personal relationship is a very effective form of evangelism, and tied up in that is that person seeing just by the way you live that there is something different.
Ahh guys i feel I'm doing a bad job at presenting a biblically correct view (spec. as i don't quite the bible!). I think I'm pretty bad at explaining stuff but just an opinion would be nice if you can spare the time?? And i don't want to go back and be like HA look at this. I was right do dooo.
So yeah, long post, but important. I'm just worried! I hate biblically incorrect views!! And her going on abotu a helpmeet was a bit perplexing. God designed woman ebcause man needed her so he wasn't lonely, not just to look after the home i thought. If there's some part of the Bible that supports that and i've missed it . . . enlighten me please!! She quote a verse that said something about women (among other things) keeping the home but *sigh* that surely isn't decrying any career for women if they keep home as well? ahhh
(Seriously that bit that said i was truly misinformed was totally upsetting, cos i take it as a comment on everyone who's taught me!)
[Editor's note] okay so this girl has thoroughly confused me as to what she'd saying. I think she'd totally against women havign a career. But she talks of some people who run their own business and says she wants to pursue graphic design and publishing? She quote the bible for her view, but times were different then would be my reply. As i have said, sh'es thoroughly confused me.
:( i'm sad now.