I thought I would be writing more on this thing but that hasn't happened. Sorry.
- "Always the friend never the boyfriend". I thought about this last night as I was having a text discussion with someone. I've had my two gf's and they were great. But there have been quite a few others that I have had feelings for but I was or am the just the friend. It sucks, there's no other way to describe it. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy and cherish the friendships I have. I love my "girl" friends with all my heart and I will do anything for them. It would just be nice to not always get stuck in what is commonly known as the "friend zone". How does one even get caught in there? Is there some length of time to make your move? And if you don't do it then you're just stuck there? I don't know. It can't be that I'm too nice of a guy, can it? I know I'm not the most attractive guy either but I'm not fugly, am I? I don't write all this to get pity comments and to make people feel sorry for me. I'm fine being single and I enjoy it as much as I can. But naturally I would like some lovin...if I can use that term. I just wonder how I continually end up as just the friend. And I hope none of those girl friends feel that they can't lean on me or talk to me anymore. I love you all. I am just venting a little bit here.
- I gotta stop comparing myself to my other classmates in terms of grades. It doesn't really matter. If you get a better grade I should be happy for you. We all learn in different ways.
- I finally came across some OT stuff that answered some questions. I was reading about Israel finally getting into the land. The part about the story that always tripped me up was that God seemingly endorsed the destruction of other peoples just so Israel could have a land of their own. In reading my textbook I learned there is another way to look at the occupation of the lands. If I understand the theory correctly Israel slowly moved into the land and eventually there was sort of a revolution. The revolution consisted of the Israelites who were the peasants overthrowing the Canaanites who were the ruling class. The distinction between Israelites and Canaanites was not so much of race/origin but of socio-economic status. The Canaanites were ruling in an unGodly matter and the revolution was necessary to establish a society which honored God. It wasn't as if the Israelites deserved the land either, it was still a gift from God. One that could be and did get taken away. I'm hoping my prof lectures more on this issue tomorrow. This might be the spark I was looking for. I hope I did justice to the theory, I didn't feel like taking my book out again. Bethany can correct me if she so pleases.
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
3 comments:
Hm... so in terms of the socio-economic status, is that in some sense meant to be a foreshadowing in some sense of the whole 'last will be first' concept, or am I just reading too much into it? While the Canaanites were bad people, the Israelites always seemed to be messing up just as much, if not more than other cultures/groups, so it makes me wonder why them? I've always wondered about things like that in the OT as well.
Er... I guess the "why them" is kind of just answered in that it could have been any group, but the lineage leading towards Jesus was through that group, right?
I'm sorry you feel the way you do. I have similar feelings and I'm not really sure either what puts someone in the "friend group." I wonder if it has to do with an initial attraction that has to be there or timing or...who knows! But if you ever figure it out, let me in on the secret:)
You are correct in explaining ONE theory that the text book shows. I liked how the text looked at multiple theories, but when it comes down to it, its an ideology that's being written much later than the events themselves with a theological agenda. The writers were biased because they are human but it speaks volumes to think of the "conquering" as "faithful memories of the faithful." The lens through which they see it infiltrates their account of it.
Post a Comment