| |
 |
Wednesday, June 04, 2003 |
This definitely falls in the "draft" category for now, but those of you who still come around, get to see it. :-) It probably has a couple spelling mistakes, as well...haven't even checked that yet.
----------------------------------------
April Cowards
Dear old Elizabeth,
she cracked her bare knuckle on my plastic chin
and left a mark, with her candid eyes,
and left in the rain, and that's
the last I've ever seen of her.
We polished up goodbyes, for two minutes
beneath the din of a Musco chandelier,
as that's all the time you're left with,
once you've forgotten three years
of peace, or more likely pity,
I'm a glutton for this beleaguered life,
the sadder nights, the better,
since then I'd not have to face the world,
not have to love, hold, bargain, comfort, die.
Sell it to me simply, and I, lacking trepidition
will press the linen closer to my chest
than any soul. My dear old heart,
she curled up in a carbon shell,
and sank beneath the mud and that's
the last I've ever seen of her.
11:40:00 PM 
|
|
Rarely is it that I learn as much at one time as I did when reading this article.
Perhaps most strikingly, Jesus himself, along with the Judaism of his time, clearly had a category for intersexual persons. In response to a question from his disciples about marriage, divorce, and celibacy, Jesus replies, “There are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can” (Matt. 19:12). The “eunuchs who have been so from birth” are what the Talmud calls “eunuchs of the sun,” persons whose genitalia have been ambiguous from the first time they saw the light, and are recognized in the Talmud, as in this saying of Jesus, as a separate category from those castrated intentionally or by an injury.
Good stuff.
4:02:36 PM
|
|
FallenSnow02: i can't wait to get some of my pie
3:18:35 PM
|
|
Stumbling toward a theology of getting married.
Pretty good article, I think the author is accurate with most of his arguments. But what I really thought about when I was reading was this:
The way I'm seeing it, any idea of a legal marraige contract, of any sort and certainly what is traditional in this country, assumes a thiestic worldview. How could materialism/humanism etc. justify a "marraige commitment" between anybody, irrespective of sexual preferrence, polygamy et. al., if humans are "only" advanced mammals?
It would seem that, to remain consistent in his view, a non-theist would seek to implore the state to cease recognition of marraige contracts.
Perhaps the physicalist could argue for his marraige as part of a human tradition, but I would think that would be a bit hollow, given that marraige symbolizes a primarily spiritual union.
But then again, what do I know?
This should go down next to the candy bar post as a first and last happening for MA. :-)
12:06:31 PM
|
|
Sosa corks bat.
Cheaters never prosper, and the Cubs rarely prosper regardless of whether they're cheating or not.
11:55:28 AM
|
|
Film buffs will enjoy this one, probably more than I did. The American Film Institute has named it's top 50 heroes and villains, apparently to celebrate it's 100-year anniversary. I didn't know film had been around that long.
Some interesting selections, I for one was relatively suprised at the fairly high number of recent contributors to the list.
2:37:37 AM
|
|
© Copyright 2003 Ken Graber.
|
|
|
|
|
