Mother-In-Law's Day/Daylight Saving Time Ends/Fall Festival (Missouri)/Bhaiya Dooj/National Day (Austria)/Mule Day
2003-10-26 @ 11:48 p.m.

Went to eat pratas again for dinner, although I think we ordered less this time round. Today was astoundingly productive revision-wise, covered a few chapters of Biology, but nothing more for Social Studies. The biggest joke in the world would be to get 6 points for the Preliminaries, and 16 points for the 'O' Levels, something which I'm working to avoid. I just found out how hopeless my Physics is, at least in my opinion. Now I'm trying in vain to finish an essay on Poems: Deep And Dangerous, so that Mrs Smith will stop commenting on my lack of effort. I hope it's a good one, because I picked a question that was very similar to the one we did a month or so ago. This time I'm approaching it from a different perspective, less analysis of the content of the poems, more analysis of the questions the poems raise in my mind. I hope it pays off, because I'd really love to be sleeping right now, but I have five paragraphs more to write and I have no idea what I'm going to say yet! Where is my sheltered garden? Can you make me a prairie so that I can run away and hide?

Incidentally, it has come to my attention that today is Reformation Sunday. Coincidentally, I was studying church history today, specifically that of the Anglican denomination. Then when I got home, I was reading about the various arguments and counter-arguments for and against Roman Catholicism, which certain denominations denounce as a false religion that masquerades as true Christianity. With no offence to any Roman Catholics out there, I'm inclined to agree at this point in time. Although there was one rather interesting website that denounced the Protestants as being the false religion, some of the arguments sound downright silly and I sent an e-mail to query some points defending the Roman Catholic faith that I found debatable. There's also a lot of controversy over the canon of Scripture, whether the Apocrypha is legitimate and rejected by the Protestants, or was it added to the Bible to justify the Roman Catholic faith. A most interesting religious tangle, enough to make me consider a degree in theology just to try and figure it all out. From what I've read so far though, everyone seems to be arguing that someone else's doctrine is fundamentally wrong. The Protestants claim that Roman Catholicism is Satan's cleverest deception. The Baptists claim the Protestants have strayed in their practice of baptism without immersion and infant baptism. The Old Catholics reject the concept of papal infallibility which the Roman Catholics adhere to. I'm sure there are a lot more errors each of the denominations would like to point out in each other's doctrine. I'd settle for a non-denominational Christianity, without all the entanglements brought about by all the various schisms and offshoots. Wouldn't it be nice if God could just come down and tell us just exactly what the Christian faith is at its most basic, without all the clergymen throwing scriptural references? I settle myself down for a long wait...