Mr Burns: "Well, if its a crime to love ones country, then I'm guilty. And if its a crime to steal a trillion dollars and use it to fund an enemy communist regime, then I'm guilty of that, too. And if its a crime to bribe a jury, so God help me, I'll soon be guilty of that!"
Homer: "God bless America!"
Went and saw Must Love Dogs last night. Better than I thought it would be - quite a few good lafs. Made me want a dog - or, at least, pine for my poor little mice.
Woke up quite early (8), but didn't really feel that tired. I got to sleep rather latish last night, after 11:30, because I drank tea just before bed. I was thus thinking about the wonders of Deuteronomy...it was getting me very worked up.
Read some more of my Simpsons book - its great and very addictive - sort following the lines to my For God, Country and Coca-Cola book, but about a subject I am much more obsessed with.
I'm finding some of the language used a bit irritating - that the Simpsons is the most important cultral phenomemon since the Beatles, etc. One of the most noticable is that 'the creators were given absolute creative control' which I am hearing way too often, and thus I am very cynical about giving much credo to. Ironically (maybe - thankyou, Alanis. Bah!), though, in both instances I have heard it emphasised, I am inclined to believe it. Seinfeld, because I see the interviews with the network executives, and ten + years later, they are still sweating over some of the stuff that got put on TV, and the Simpsons, because of their continual slandering of Fox.
Did Mandarin lesson 9. What can I say - I have no idea. Seriously. I'm hoping I'm absorbing this stuff subconciously, because I can't really make sense of anything I'm hearing. It all sounds the same - I keep hearing my name: the word for 'beer' seems to be insulting me. Then theres 'yeah' and 'yeow' and being 'gun shy itchy' or something.
Finally decided I couldn't put it off any longer, so drove out to Harvest West to get my books for Amos and the other three 8th century prophets (Isaiah, Hosea and Micah, if I read correctly - certainly hope I did). Man, was I disillusioned! I had like UWA in my head - OK, much smaller, sure, but with like a few buildings, and a bit of parkland, and stuff. What is it, really? A single building, in the middle of a low-level industrial zone - surrounded by, like, Midland Bric, smash repairers and tubing sellers and the like. The library was tiny, but had more than enough of the sort of books I wanted - I tried to take the thinnest ones so I wouldn't have to read so much.
Being an external, I didn't have a student card, so I had to like sign up for one while I was there. The admin guy just like wrote the details of the books on some paper, and said it would be quicker next time.
I tried to start my assignment, and actually did manage to get some notes down (its like 100 words, already - only 1900 to go!). But, once again, my mind went completely off track. The main thing that struck me was this:
The main focus of the assignment is Amos - chronologically, the first prophet (mid 8th century BC - thats 750BC to you). So why he's like just plopped in the first third somewhere, is beyond me. I guess they put the major ones first, but then? Anyway, besides the point.
Being a logical human, I would think that the prophecy sequence would go "look, you probably shouldn't do this" to "don't do that - bad stuff might happen" to "bad stuffs gonna happen - you'd better stop" to "its too late already". Amos - first prophet. Whats his message? "Your history, Israel, and theres nothing you can do about it".
So I coined a theory myself - God is using hyperbole (Jesus did it a lot, so, like Son, like Father, why not?) to try and 'shock' Israel into changing there ways. The fact that Amos goes so absolutely the other way of the convenant, (the commentary says he uses Gods 'redemption history' as a negative rather than a positive) suggests to me that God is trying to say "don't just sit back and think you can do whatever you want because I gave this promise to Abraham. I don't need you to fulfil my purposes - you're taking my blessings for granted: watch yourself, or I'll take it all away" in a very extreme kinda way. Like, for instance, Jonah's message to Ninevah - it was, "in three days, Ninevah will be destroyed" - there was no "if you repent, He will relent". However, they did repent, and He did relent.
Unfortunately, for Israel, they did not repent, and they were completely destroyed by the Assyrians. I didn't know, but only Judah returned from captivity under the Babylonians (then Persians). The northern kingdom of Israel was removed from the pages of history altogether.
During lunch, started watching Enter the Dragon starring Bruce Lee, again. I have actually seen, at least, bits, of it before. Has WAY too many parallels with Mortal Kombat, which is weird for a great number of reasons.
Did lesson 9 and 10 on the sax. Finally played something that acutally sounded like a tune - or, bits of it sounded like a tune. These eighth notes really are very difficult to play, and my finger changes are way too slow to be able to make it sound like anything even remotely tuneful.
Finished the chapters in my book on Exodus. Gee - Christianity (or, more correctly, God) has a way of absolutely killing what one thinks is logical thought. There is no way that one could possibly try and base their belief in the God of the bible on a scientif, methodic, scholaratic type base - it just doesn't make sense. I feel sorry for those Christian-science type people - they must have sever psychosis, or huge mental blind spots.
The point is, one sentance of the bible (and here I'm talking Pentateuch type stuff) almost conclusively proves that the document is historically accurate and that Israel did have a miraculous deliverance from Egypt. And then, a few paragraphs later, there is a reference to something that is so insanely contradictory that it just does not fit in.
A good example is that two of the most definitive locations in Exodus (the red sea crossing and the mount Sinai episode) cannot be located geographically (the red sea reference is actually not the red sea - its the "sea of reeds" - and thus it could be any number of 'ponds'), while a number of strange obscure references have been clearly located.
Another example - it mentions the Israelite slaves built two cities in Egypt, which it appears they did. But, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of a Pharoah who died suddenly by being drowned. And, surely the point of the Exodus was so that 'all the land of Egypt will know that I am God'? But there is very few references to God or even Israel in Egyptian history.
I think before I started this bible school unit, I, like most other Christians, probably, felt the Old Testament was, on the whole, quite boring, but theres some lovely stuff in there - Deuteronomy, Ecclesiastes being my favourites, but also Psalms, Proverbs, the end of Job, etc.
But, even only half way through I've formed another view on the Old Testament - its SCARY. The book is so horribly unpredictable, unexplainable and uncategoriasable that its often safer to just not read it at all.
I was just thinking, having just finished Leviticus, and reading some insane person who is trying, once again, to prove that homosexuality is, for all intents and purposes, endorsed by God, and thus trying to water down the passage in Leviticus which mentions that 'for a man to lie with another man as with a woman is an abomination' - maybe it is possible that the bible doesn't explicity condem homosexual relationships. Well, tell me, where in Leviticus is there anything regarding sex and age? Should we thus assume that God supports child pornography?
I just cannot believe that no-one can take the middle ground, here. That to live in the 21st century is to be so insanely accomodating and, shudder, 'enlightened', that once something is accepted by the general population it is OK. Frankly, there isn't really a good enough argument against homosexuality that will convince anyone who's gone down that road to turn from it. The only reason I know is 'God said so'. Thats good enough for me, because I have accepted who God is and how much He has done, and appreciate that He, frankly, deserves it. And then some. There are two points here:
- it is unlikely that a non-Christian would choose to even try to give up homosexual desires
- it is fruitless for him to do so - he still needs the forgiveness of Jesus for all those other little things that all of us do
It thus also confuses me why Christians seem to be so willing to protest against gay marriages, but not seeming to bother about everything else, from white lies to pre-marital sex. Change the sinner - THEN worry about the sin. That was Jesus' plan, as far as I can tell. Not, what all these free-thinking proponents seem to exist. That Jesus accepted them for what they were, full stop. Sure, He did - but it didn't stop there, did it? I believe Zaccheus is the only example we actually see: "I will give back what I stole 2 or 3 times over" - without it being recorded of Jesus saying a word, save "I am coming to your house for dinner". But, it is a very reasonable assumption to think that each sinner ("it is not the healthy that need a doctor, but the sick") later reached a similar stage of repentance.
I've told people before - its dangerous for me to think. Later.