i tried. i can't.

I love Jurisprudence, but these articles (and these glasses that need changing) aren't making life easy for me.

"Ancient Greece and Rome were societies in which the modern dichotomies of..."

 Reminds me of the time Sheldon 'taught' Penny about Science:

"Physics comes from the ancient Greek word 'Physika--' It's at this point that you'll want to start taking notes. ...Physika means the science of natural things, and it is there, in ancient Greece, that our story begins."

"Naturally, it does not follow that any positive rule which is claimed to be a law is a law. (K, I get this) In the abstract the predication of legality is the predication of morality. (Huh?) If the rule fails moral criteria, whether it be a deficiency in substance, title, or procedure, then it is not legal. (Yeaaahh, I'm back. I understand!) Practically speaking, if the rule is judged to fail the moral criteria employed by the adjudicator then it should be judged to be not legal, but in terms of any hypothetical objective morality any such judgements are corrigible." (Heh?)

It's like reading those signboards in Chinese at the hawker stall with no translations underneath:

taken from here.

Monologue:

Ooook, that second word means 'pig', the third is 'leg' and the first is... um... looks like a flag actually, but cannot be... So that thing is... er... something pig leg? Hm, the next one is 'meat' and um, (what's that word la, didn't learn it at Chinese tuition)... so it's some... meat? Er er... bla bla bla... don't know the last word... but the one before that is 'white'. So... um... what could be white ya? Hmm. 

...Let's go to another shop la.

(I'll leave it to you to judge if I'm making this up)

So yeah, the point is - what's the point of knowing five words if you have no idea what the other six are? It's the same with Jurisprudence la. Sigh.

I like Ms Sharon's tutorial class, but I always feel a little stupider when I leave the room. It's like I'm not good enough,  no matter how hard I try, no matter how prepared I thought I was.

Of all Jurisprudence students, I think those of us in Ms Sharon's class should understand best why doing good things won't get us to heaven. 

God's standard is that high, and no matter how hard we try, we can't meet it. We always fall short. It doesn't matter if you're "almost there" or "half-righteous" or "all good except that one thing". If you don't meet the standard all the way, you're nowhere at all. God isn't trying to be proud by saying He has a high standard; like Ms Sharon, He does have a higher standard, and we have a lower standard. It's a fact. He doesn't have to say it for us to know it.

So what's a struggling Jurisprudence student to do?

Ms Sharon chides us for falling short, she does. But she doesn't not turn up to teach just because we fall short everytime she comes in. She doesn't give up on us. Most of all, she forgives our shortcomings. She also says, "you are a work in progress".

This is the main difference between last year's Criminal Law tutorial and this year's Jurisprudence tutorial. 

As with Criminal Law, there are many things I don't know about Jurisprudence, but three things I know:

That I fall short, 

Ms Sharon is willing to forgive my shortcomings,

and she is willing to work me into a better student of Jurisprudence.

Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already arrived at my goal, 

but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 

Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. 

But one thing I do: 

Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 

I press on toward the goal to win the prize 

for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

Philippians 3:12-14

as i said, university students get very philosophical shortly before assignment due dates.