Rambley poetry

As my charming history teacher declares, "I will reform myself!" And such is my avowed intention--thus the snowballing blizzard of posts. A bit of background. This poem began with legit curiosity as to whether one could write passable poetry while munching an apple--as I was then doing: you be the judge of that. From there it morphed into a pondering on prayer, rather unimaginatively comparing it to the food I was eating, and finally, concludes with a pondry on human nature. A disjointed poem, but heartfelt; composed while lying on my family's picnic table! 

Can a poet eat?

Or are the craft of the pen 

And the need of the stomach

Incompatible?

We eat thrice a day--sometimes oftener

Snacking often

Or at least I do.

I pray less--and don't nosh between meals. 

Should we schedule our prayer

Like they schedule lunches at a cafeteria

20 minutes each--and leave your tray by the door?

Do our souls long for prayer like a marathon runner

Pants for water

And dehydrated, gasps

Do our souls 

Deprived of that necessary solitude

Wheeze and shrivel

Before our unseeing eyes?

A Beast is fully corporal, filled with very self

An Angel is fully ethereal, filled with that delightful Other

As necessary for Life as bread--more so

But quietly.

Which triumphs?

The angel's ecstasy

Or the Beast's gluttony?

Jesus was Man and God

Man is God and Beast

To which nature will I subscribe? 

To my Jekyll

Or to my Hyde?

Critique of Sarah Mally's Before You Meet Prince Charming

Hello Faithful Readers--for if you're actually reading this post, then you must be very faithful indeed! Please excuse my long silence--it shall promptly be remidied with a series of post so stunning that (insert appropriate metaphor). Anyway. I wrote this informal piece a while ago for a friend's blog about Purity. 

 I first encountered Sarah Mally’s Before You Meet Prince Charming in a Junior High Sunday School class on purity. Initially I was hesitant—what on earth was purity, and why should I be concerned about it? Expecting a list of do’s and don’ts mandating my behavior I was pleasantly surprised by her chipper writing style and off-beat suggestions. Rather than a conglomeration of rules the size of the Magna Carta and the weight of the Rosetta Stone Mally emphasizes attitude, carefully explaining why we should desire purity, offering tips on how to deal with infatuation, and reminding us that in the end chasing guys isn’t anybody’s life purpose. 

Each chapter is structured similarly. It begins with a story segment about the life of a fictitious Princess, set in some unspecified yet medievalish time. Much like the characters fromPilgrims Progress, the names of Mally’s characters—Sir Valiant, Sir Eloquence, and Flirtelia—reflect their moral fiber. After the story Mally flips to the present day, basing the chapter’s theme off of the Princess’ struggles. Through personal anecdotes, testimonies, exercises, and quirky cartoons she humorously illustrates her point. Add this to your booklist—cause this is definitely a must-read!!

            One of the first topics Mally debates is dating. This tends to be a volatile topic, since people usually have strong opinions about it one way or the other.  In a solidly logos-based argument she suggests that dating is superfluous—either a pointless emotional rollercoaster or else just plain unnecessary. Think for a moment about the purpose of dating. Most people view it as a lighthearted night getting better aquatinted with that cute someone of the opposite gender. Hummm…rethink that one. A more accurate metaphor is that of a job interview. Sounds strange? Let me explain. In a job interview both parties are checking the other out, figuring out if they have the same mission statement and would be compatible working together. Dating is a “job interview” for marriage—scoping out the other person and seeing if you’re compatible. Viewing dating in this light gives a whole other perspective. Pretend for a moment that you’re 16 (if you really are, this shouldn’t take too much imagination =) Now pick positively the soonest date you would consider marriage—no pun intended!! Lets say its 23—the year after you graduate from college.

 

23-16=7

 

Whoa! At absolutely the very earliest, you’re not planning on marriage for another seven years—doesn’t it seem a bit premature to go on a “job interview” already? Would you interview for a job as a surgeon before you even got accepted to med school? No….I think not. So in this sense, dating is an over-hasty—not to mention rather expensive—habit.

Even if you are convinced that dating is harmless, consider this: is dating really the best way to get to know someone? Anyone can act chivalrous and charming for the duration of a romantic dinner or a dreamy walk in the woods—we all like to show our best foot forward. Anyone can act wonderful for a few hours. My suggestion is to observe them under real-life circumstances. Watch how he treats his little sister. See if she goes bananas when she looses her car keys. Witness him under stress. Observe her interactions with other people. Mark if he holds the door for the woman with the wailing baby. Personally I think you can learn a lot more about someone from watching their daily behavior than from seeing the romantic mask they assume in an artificial setting.

            So if the dating relationship doesn’t work out? You break up, right? Besides being a totally unnecessarily emotional minefield, this is terrible training for marriage! I believe that generations of people accustomed to breaking off relationships when the going gets tough have led to today’s preposterously high divorce rate.

            A final suggestion: apply the same standards to your conduct that you would wish to see in your future spouse. Do you really want to hear about all the girls he kissed? Or her summer fling? Or the obsessive phone conversations? Not so much. So guard your heart—and don’t keep a double standard!

            You’re still with me? Excellent. Let’s carry on. Another issue Mally addresses is infatuation—i.e., when you can’t stop thinking about that certain someone. You’re figuring out an algebra equation, mowing the lawn, or maybe practicing the piano when suddenly—presto chango—they pop into your head again! It’s like reverse stalking—you’re shadowing yourself.

This can be very frustrating, to say the least!  Mally suggests, and I find it rather helpful, to pray for the guy (in my case) or girl. Ask God to keep his heart focused on God’s overarching purpose for his life—yes, even if you’re not a part of it—pray for his relationships with his family, and that God would strengthen his resolve during life trials.

Mally further advises praying directly for your unknown future spouse. Personally, I’ve found this to be very much an exercise in faith—a stepping out blindfolded. It has something to do with the fact that I have no idea who I’m praying for—my next-door neighbor or a guy I haven’t even met yet—and thus can’t attach a face to the mysterious someone. It reminds me to rely solely on God to bring the two of us together in His perfect timing. Because really, He knows us better than we ourselves do—He perfectly matched us, balancing our comforting similarities with our stimulating differences and causing our brief human lives to intersect for His glory. God is a divine matchmaker! Our role is simply to devote ourselves to following His will—He will take care of the rest. Any paltry efforts on our own part are unnecessary and vaguely ridiculous, because really, who can improve upon God?

This idea is echoed in one of my favorite scenes from the epic musical Fiddler on the Roof. Perchik, the revolutionary student, and Hodel, the spunky milkman's daughter, have just announced their impromptu engagement to her tradition-revering father. Naturally, he’s completely scandalized. Inwardly he debates whether he should “allow” the marriage, “He loves her. Love…It’s a new style. On the other hand, our old ways were once new, weren’t they? On the other hand, they decided without parents. Without a matchmaker! On the other hand, did Adam and Eve have a matchmaker? Oh, yes, they did. And it seems these two have the same matchmaker.”

Finally, Mally reminds us, “Marriage, in and of itself, is not what gives purpose and meaning in life, but rather fulfillment comes from walking with and serving the Lord.” How true. This concept is echoed elsewhere with, “Yet, Marriage cannot be your ultimate goal in life. You must have a life purpose bigger than marriage. If you don’t, you won’t be fully prepared for marriage.” In other words, don’t rely on the other person to complete you—you’re just two broken and very flawed humans trying to be whole. Only God can truly fill you.  Don’t expect a boyfriend/girlfriend to infuse your life with meaning—he/she can’t replace God, and will only become the false idol of your heart.

Letter to Mr. Harris

Hello Mr. Harris,

I have two main objections to your argument concerning the validity of using human embryos in stem cell research. Firstly, I disagree with your assertion that embryos are somehow less than human, and therefore fair game for exploitation. Secondly, I disagree with your systematic “ranking” of life. According to your worldview, certain varieties of life—such as human embryos—are less valuable than others, effectively condoning abortion, euthanasia, and genocide. Hitler’s comparable belief in the inherent supremacy of German Aryans over inferior Slavs/Jews/Gypsies resulted in the death of millions. Will your beliefs result in comparable carnage? 
The premise that embryos are sub-human is central to your argument. If embryos are not really human, then we must logically conclude they do not deserve any of the protection normally afforded to humans. Near the beginning of the audio clip you articulate this thesis, saying, “Let us look at the details: a three day old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,00 cells in the brain of a fly.” You go on to explore the implications of this claim by later stating, “If you’re concerned about suffering in this universe, killing a fly should present you with greater moral difficulties than killing a human blastocyst.” This logic is preposterous! According to your reasoning, it is more regrettable to kill a common housefly than it is to kill a human embryo—simply because a fly's body contains more cells! Since when have civilized cultures evaluated something’s worth based on the number of cells it contains? Does our justice system find the murder of a three-foot midget to be less despicable than the murder of a seven-foot giant? Both are murders, and the murder is equally culpable, regardless of the size of his victims. 
Furthermore, you argue that because a blastocyst’s brain has not yet formed it ought to be subject to the same ethics used with brain dead humans, saying, “It is worth remembering in this context that when a person’s brain has died we currently deem it acceptable to harvest his organs provided he has donated them for this purpose…If it is acceptable to treat a person whose brain has died as something less than human, it should be acceptable to treat a blastocyst as such.” I find this argument to be fundamentally flawed—you’re comparing apples and oranges. Someone who is brain dead has likely faced a huge trauma and will never recover their brain function. On the other hand, a human embryo has all the genetic material needed to create a perfectly functioning brain—all it lacks is nine months of formation. Yet despite this discrepancy you give ethical preference to the brain-dead individual, stating that it is acceptable to harvest his organs solely, “provided he has donated them for this purpose.” However, equally human embryos are given no such courtesy. They are not required to give consent or sign any forms. And although they have not legally willed their bodies to research facilities you claim that human embryos ought to be experimented upon. You claim that we must dissect future generations to solve the ills of the present generation. And yet, outraged, you call Christians “uninformed” and without “moral reasoning and genuine compassion” because they disagree with this infanticide. In your world, Mr. Harris, a paltry nine months decides whether a complex conglomeration of tissues is known as a baby or is simply viewed as a faceless and disposable blastocyst.

Sincerely,
Hanna Kahler

Sabbath Rest

"Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the sabbath in honor of the Lord thy God; on it thou shalt not do any work, neither thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." 

I've recently become convicted about working on the Sabbath. God states above, point blank, to rest on the Sabbath. Really--the commander of the universe is asking us to take a break, to take it easy for one day out of seven--how hard should it be? Ha! Hard to remember, but so, so, easy to forget. We have a pressing homework assignment, or want to wash a pair of jeans for Monday, or are just bored and check our email...only to get sucked in to the computer. 

You know, a week is really a rather artificial time unit--nowhere in nature is there a basis for this strange seven days time segment. A day is based on the time it takes for our planet to rotate once--a year is based on the time it takes for our beloved earth to circle the sun. Even a month is based somehow off the lunar cycle--but the week? No graceful participant in the celestial dance marks a week. The week is God-breathed. If even God needed rest, why should we attempt to be "productive" 24-7? God took a break after six days--who are we, his paltry creation, to scorn at that? 

 

One Sunday a few weeks ago I did rest, really rest. It was a very peaceful day. I snuggled with my mom, worked on a cross-stitched sunflower, and maybe cooked something--I don't remember. The point is, I felt rejuvenated. Refreshed. Rested. Ready to joyfully face another week. Why don't you try it this Sunday? Turn off your computer and go for a walk. Enjoy your family. Read that book you've had on your nightstand for the past month. Embrace God's time management. 

Randomonia...?

Since my last blog post I've come across a several interesting links. I'll post the "fluff" here before metaphorically rolling up my sleeves and analyzing Blue Like Jazz and The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism.

This links to an interesting website showcasing uncommonly used words.

Save The Words

This article discusses the work of a University of Utah professor of anthropology, who theorizes that due to a "founder effect" Ashkenazim Jews are genetically predisposed to high intelligence. According to the research paper, this high IQ has the side effect of causing several genetic disorders, including Tay-Sachs. I don't entirely agree with this paper. Although there have certainly been many brilliant Jewish thinkers, it seems unfair that any people group should be inherently more intelligent than any other people group. Additionally, since Jews place a high cultural value on academics and study, it could be argued that this intelligence is not inborn, but achieved. A classic example of nature vs. nurture.   

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/culture/features/1478/

Grammar generally causes my eyes to glaze over. That said, the below website fairly clearly describes a compound complex sentence and the real difference between a dependent and independent clause. Yay for nitty-gritty grammar!! 

http://www.evergreen.edu/writingcenter/handouts/grammar/compoundcomplex.pdf 

As long as we're on the subject of grammar, an interesting note. In quoted text an ellipsis with three dots (...) indicates editing inside the sentence. For example, instead of, "My Uncle Moe, who builds houses, lives in Vermont," you could say, "My Uncle Moe...lives in Vermont." On the other hand, an ellipsis with four dots (....) is used to indicate word omission between several sentences. For example, rather than, "My Uncle Moe, who builds houses, lives in Vermont. He called today," you could simply say, "My Uncle Moe....called today." Neat, huh? 

Political Cartoon

Old-Fashioned Fun...New Fangled Yum!

Okay, that was pathetic rhyming. What can I say? I'm sorely out of practice at writing eye-catching titles. Have any of you ever read the maple sugaring scene from the Little House on the Prairie series--I'm not sure of the exact book--where Ma pours some hot syrup on the snow and makes homemade maple sugar candy? For any of you who've never had it--you are missing out on a critical life experience--it's delicious! Very sweet/creamy with a melt-in-your-mouth texture. An all-natural truffle! So....trying to duplicate that ethereal experience, I ventured outside into our sub-zero weather--okay, a bit of a hyperbole, but not by that much!--armed with a jug of raw material and fierce determination. Perhaps because I didn't heat the syrup first, or maybe for some chemical quirk, the syrup didn't harden, but oozed into the snow. :-( Not to be deterred, I seized my nearby spoon, and ate my first maple-sugar flavored slushy. Ummmm...almost worth the incessant driveway shoveling!