posted by
mmoa_writes at 03:10pm on 09/05/2005
I am impresed with myself very much against my own will.
I have just finished my Spanish Oral which is a HUGE relief. Despite the fact that I am sure I truly screwed up with one or two of my verbs, Sra Raynesford insisted that I did very well and that I would get a good mark. Ah, well... we'll see in August. So long as I do really well in my listening (no chance) and my Reading (looking up)...
Spent most of the day revising and feeling bored and unsatisfied with something. There was a mini Biology exam which I was quite pleased with. I now know the sorts of things I need to revise (definitions, etc. one mark sort of questions). I suppose, at least my block has lifted and I can write as well as study properly.
Now here is a question for all you lot there who are right on par witht heir literary genius' etc: What is so fantasticc about Proust? What I mean is, why is it that when someone reads a book by him it deserves a "My Goodness!" sort of response (or "dick sprouts" if you're a constntly rolling, foul mouthed egg made up of hundreds of pixels)? Yes, I am reading him at the moment, yes I do find it fantastic, but why does it provoke such a response that someone else say, Tolstoy, Dickens or Hardy just don't manage to?
Yesterday was the Sunday of the Ascension, the Feast itself having taken pleace on Thursday (and I attended the service to that to) and it was thanks to the sermon that I really began to appreciate how necessary the Old Testament actually is because it would have been so easy - and probably more appropriate - for the Church Fathers to simply cut it all... although you'd end up with a very, very light book.
It's interesting how - at least, by all appearances - the Ascension itself wasn't truly literal. Oh, of course, Jesus was exalted to the Father, as St. Paul says, but never (perhaps, or at least, going along with this stream of thought) actually raised physically. Though having said that, it would always be nice to know the exact details of Jesus becoming exalted: an ascension in itself.
However, the purpose to the Old Testament becomes more apparent. Jesus' ascension is almost a replica of the account of Elijah's ascension, right down to his spirit descending upon his disciples. However, so as to prove the validity of his new Faith, Luke (as with the other gospel writers) tries to show how much more Jesus is than a reincarnated Messiah - particularly by his incorporation of the angels).
Anyhoo, that's all for now folks. My first Religoous rambling for a while, I now realise...
*breathes*
Now to registration!
I have just finished my Spanish Oral which is a HUGE relief. Despite the fact that I am sure I truly screwed up with one or two of my verbs, Sra Raynesford insisted that I did very well and that I would get a good mark. Ah, well... we'll see in August. So long as I do really well in my listening (no chance) and my Reading (looking up)...
Spent most of the day revising and feeling bored and unsatisfied with something. There was a mini Biology exam which I was quite pleased with. I now know the sorts of things I need to revise (definitions, etc. one mark sort of questions). I suppose, at least my block has lifted and I can write as well as study properly.
Now here is a question for all you lot there who are right on par witht heir literary genius' etc: What is so fantasticc about Proust? What I mean is, why is it that when someone reads a book by him it deserves a "My Goodness!" sort of response (or "dick sprouts" if you're a constntly rolling, foul mouthed egg made up of hundreds of pixels)? Yes, I am reading him at the moment, yes I do find it fantastic, but why does it provoke such a response that someone else say, Tolstoy, Dickens or Hardy just don't manage to?
Yesterday was the Sunday of the Ascension, the Feast itself having taken pleace on Thursday (and I attended the service to that to) and it was thanks to the sermon that I really began to appreciate how necessary the Old Testament actually is because it would have been so easy - and probably more appropriate - for the Church Fathers to simply cut it all... although you'd end up with a very, very light book.
It's interesting how - at least, by all appearances - the Ascension itself wasn't truly literal. Oh, of course, Jesus was exalted to the Father, as St. Paul says, but never (perhaps, or at least, going along with this stream of thought) actually raised physically. Though having said that, it would always be nice to know the exact details of Jesus becoming exalted: an ascension in itself.
However, the purpose to the Old Testament becomes more apparent. Jesus' ascension is almost a replica of the account of Elijah's ascension, right down to his spirit descending upon his disciples. However, so as to prove the validity of his new Faith, Luke (as with the other gospel writers) tries to show how much more Jesus is than a reincarnated Messiah - particularly by his incorporation of the angels).
Anyhoo, that's all for now folks. My first Religoous rambling for a while, I now realise...
*breathes*
Now to registration!
(no subject)
(no subject)
Or you can, you know... just trash it... lol
(no subject)
btw, liking the religious rambling, no one on here seems to like talking about that sort of stuff. St Paul pisses me off...my vicar agrees with me. She rocks...
and hope the spanish wasn't too stressful - i was sooooo scared of my French oral....then it was fine. i love it when things turn out alright in the end - life's small happy endings.
Ellen -x-
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
they should've kept Zaphod with the head on a seperate neck though, i mean if they could do it for Johnny Knoxville in MIB2, they can definitely do it for Hitchhikers! i mean, come on! the guy who plays Zaphod is rather nice - i wouldn't mind seeing two of him at once, would you? ;D