Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, 1950-2009

I have only ever worn out one book. The first copy--which I still keep as an artifact of my 20s--became a palimpsest of sorts, its text underlined in four different colors of pencil, emblazoned with streaks of yellow and green neon highlighter. Little enigmatic notes crawl up and down the margins of dog-eared pages, and decomposing Post-it notes jut out untidily from the edges; the spine has long since given way. At a certain point, picking up this particular copy became too overwhelming an encounter with my old selves, and so I bought a fresh one, which I tried in vain to keep clean. That book is Epistemology of the Closet, and its author is the brilliant, inimitable, explosive intellectual Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, who died last night from breast cancer at the age of 58.

It is difficult to calculate the impact of Sedgwick's scholarship, in part because its legacy is still in the making, but also because she worked at a skew to so many fields of inquiry. Feminism, queer theory, psychoanalysis and literary, legal and disability studies--Sedgwick complicated and upended them all, sometimes in ways that infuriated more anodyne scholars, but always in ways that pushed established parameters.

In one of her more audacious insights, Sedgwick proposed two ways of understanding homosexuality: a "minoritizing view" in which there is "a distinct population of persons who 'really are' gay," and a "universalizing view" in which sexual desire is unpredictable and fluid, in which "apparently heterosexual persons...are strongly marked by same-sex influences." Think of it, in shorthand, as the difference between Ellen Degeneres' "Yep, I'm gay!" and Gore Vidal's "There is no such thing as a homosexual or heterosexual person; there are only homo- or heterosexual acts."

Sedgwick wasn't interested in validating either view, but rather in how these two views compete and collude in ways that produce an "irreducible incoherence" (see Mark Edmundson's review of Epistemology in The Nation). Consider, for example, her analysis of homosexual panic defense, which was once accepted by juries as a rationale for reducing sentences for gay bashers. As Edmundson summarized:

The defense plays on the incoherence between minoritizing and universalizing conceptions of sexual identity. "Gay bashing," the juror may suppose, "is something only latent homosexuals do: Those people are sick and deserve judicial mercy." But also (secretly), "That's something I might do: Let's let them off easy." Of course, that thinking sets up scenarios in which anyone ("because we're all a little bit gay") can be identified by another as a homosexual ("someone who's really gay") making an advance, and be assaulted as a consequence. This incoherence leaves everyone, at times, open to blackmail, open to violence...

At a moment that seems so far from (post-gay?) and yet so eerily close to (gay panic?) the tangled time (the late '80s) in which Sedgwick wrote Epistemology, her intervention is worth pondering again. Consider, for example, the oft-unintelligible debate over gay marriage. Is gay marriage a "right" that a small minority of people deserve as a matter of equality? Or is it a threat to, as George W. Bush once put it, the "most fundamental institution of civilization?"

These two questions aren't so much devices for sorting the world into pro-gay and anti-gay factions as they are competing, volatile frames of reference. When liberals find it irksome that anyone could possibly object to gay marriage ("Explain how my gay marriage hurts your straight marriage?!"), they implicitly endorse a minoritizing view. Meanwhile, conservatives who rant about the end of civilization may believe (rightly?) that homosexuality is everywhere, and that without strong state injunctions against it, people will be so busy practicing gay S/M that they forget to continue the species. In this case, the framework that might produce the more immediate pro-gay result doesn't line up with the more potent expression of homosexuality, and it might also, in other contexts (like say, genetic testing to weed out likely gay babies), produce antigay results. It's difficult to know in advance, however, and that was Sedgwick's point.

Sedgwick's work was marked throughout by an abiding love for gay people, gay men in particular. She once proposed that in a gay-affirmative world, there would be guide books on how to bring your kids up gay. "Advice on how to make sure your kids turn out gay, not to mention your students, your parishoners, your therapy clients, or your military subordinates, is less ubiquitous than one might think," she deadpanned in Epistemology. It's funny, and then, after you laugh, it hits you like a rock.

Sedgwick once wrote of what "a pleasure and privilege" it was to write her second book Between Men; she was always a pleasure and privilege to read.

Comments (48)

1. One word- Sick!

   Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 7:17pm

2. By way of rebuttal: Is homosexuality a disease?

   "No, homosexuality is not a disease. All major mental health organizations, including the American Psychological Association (APA), have stated that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Being unsure or uncomfortable about your feelings can cause anxiety and stress, which can sometimes cause physical problems like trouble sleeping, nausea and headache. Talking with people about how you feel, such as trusted family members and friends, can help reduce your stress and anxiety."

   Source: the American Academy of Family Physicians at http://familydoctor/online/famdocen/home/ children/teens/sexuality/739.html

   Posted by JakobFabian at 04/13/2009 @ 7:26pm

3. she was a genius and one of my favorite critics.

   Epistemology was utterly brilliant

   rip

   Posted by darladoon at 04/13/2009 @ 7:45pm

4. Thank you, Richard, for this touching and characteristically well-written eulogy. You've put it just right.

   -- A regular reader.

   Posted by acs at 04/13/2009 @ 8:22pm

5. Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 7:17pm

   Two people of the same gender love each other that's "sick"....

   but "Jesus loves cluster bombs" is "normal"??!?!??

   Posted by Mask at 04/13/2009 @ 9:03pm

6. One word- Sick!

   Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 7:17pm

   I hope one day you get the hate out of your heart LVL. Jesus loves everyone, even the gays.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/13/2009 @ 9:48pm

7. Speaking of Gore Vidal. Would love to have seen him go mano- a -mano with Buckley back in 1968 during the TV convention coverage. Bet GV ruffled that weirdo's feathers but good.

   Picture Buckley delivering a rejoinder & trailing off with that goofy scalp ripple. What a friggin freak.

   Posted by Sorelish at 04/13/2009 @ 9:57pm

8. I hope one day you get the hate out of your heart LVL. Jesus loves everyone, even the gays.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/13/2009 @ 9:48pm

   Of course He loves everyone. But the soul that sins shall die. If G-d says don't do something and you do it anyway, it's not that He want's to punish, but your rebellion forces Him to be truthful to Himself and His word.

   Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 11:29pm

9. Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 7:17pm

   Vert sick and very weird.

   Posted by ACook at 04/13/2009 @ 11:30pm

10. Dead eh? Sounds as though she has plenty of material for a new book now, but even if it could be publish its doubtful anyone here would wish to read it!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/13/2009 @ 11:32pm

11. "Sounds as though she has plenty of material for a new book now, but even if it could be publish its doubtful anyone here would wish to read it!"

    i would sure as hell read it. sedgwick had an extraordinary intellect. unparalleled in her field.

    have you even read her comanche?

    "But the soul that sins shall die."

    so all of the souls of the innumerable animals will also die (as homosexuality is prevalent across many different species)?

    and who decides what is sinful, and how does he/she/it transmit the recurring updates on what is, or is not, sinful to us (so we know not to ever, ever try it)?

    well, it's time to get high and go masturbate. hope those aren't sins....

    Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 12:23am

12. Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 12:23am | ignore this person | warn this person

    Ignorace indeed can be bliss, at least in this world, and once again you are proof positive!

    Posted by comancheamerican at 04/14/2009 @ 02:26am

13. Let me be the first to reply to antisocialist's brilliant one-word riposte:

    One of the familiar gripes of the loony right is that we progressives and liberals condescend to them, that we imply they are uneducated and oafish. I have personally struggled with this, have tried to be more tolerant, more open to the possibility that no matter how idiotic, bigoted, and stinky their statements, they are really just as intelligent as we are. But now, antisocialist has shattered that illusion. The fact is they just ain't.

    Posted by bookmanjb2 at 04/14/2009 @ 06:14am

14. Posted by antisocialist at 04/13/2009 @ 11:29pm |

    Does God say "Don't get divorced...much less three times"?

    Posted by Mask at 04/14/2009 @ 06:24am

15. commancheamerican-It is ignorant to simply tell someone else that they are ignorant unless you have some facts to back that up with,but you did not provide any.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/14/2009 @ 08:40am

16. antisocialist-The soul that sins shall die?I thought that the soul was eternal.Jesus died.Are you saying that He died because He was a sinner or is it that non sinners die,too?Of course,sin has nothing to do with why humans die.We die because the Earth cannot hold that many people.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/14/2009 @ 08:48am

17. It's quite heart warming to see the "Christians" passing judgment on a dead person that caused them no harm rather than show respect or say nothing,like a decent Christian would.These "Christians" need to focus on themselves and their own sick thoughts and actions rather than do what they always do and that is to point the finger at others.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/14/2009 @ 08:57am

18. Does God say "Don't get divorced...much less three times"?

    Posted by Mask at 04/14/2009 @ 06:24am

    I've answered this to you previously. If a person repents and asks for forgiveness, then G-d promises to erase the sin as if it never occured.

    The difference as I've noted with homosexuality is there is no repentance. Instead they demand acceptance for their behavior. they may get it from some, but they will not receive it from G-d (and yes Imnobody, I know it with complete certainty).

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 11:48am

19. antisocialist-Actually,you do not know anything with complete certainty and that is especially true when it comes to the subject of God and your view is based on arrogance and ego and not on reality.We humans can only make guesses when it comes to most everything which is why we can have such vastly different views that are fact based.When it comes to the subject of God no one has any facts and we only have opinions,but our opinions about God are human opinions and God cannot be defined by human terms or known by human understanding because God is so far beyond us that we can only get glimpses until we are released from our limited human minds..

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/14/2009 @ 12:01pm

20. antisocialist-Actually,you do not know anything with complete certainty and that is especially true when it comes to the subject of God and your view is based on arrogance and ego and not on reality.We humans can only make guesses when it comes to most everything which is why we can have such vastly different views that are fact based.When it comes to the subject of God no one has any facts and we only have opinions,but our opinions about God are human opinions and God cannot be defined by human terms or known by human understanding because God is so far beyond us that we can only get glimpses until we are released from our limited human minds..

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/14/2009 @ 12:01pm

    Fortunately for me (and 100's of millions of others), we can trust in the veracity of G-d's word. The reason rests on Jesus Himself. He testified that the word of G-d given to the Jews was true. He testified that He Himself was the one who revealed it to Abraham, Moses, David, and the prophets. He then proved it by demonstrating that He controlled life itself by rising from the grave.

    It's on that basis that we hold with certainty the word of G-d. As Paul stated, if Christ is not risen from the grave, our hope is in vain.

    So I will continue to speak with certainty that Jesus was not a liar. Death will be my ultimate time when I discover whether I believed correctly or in a lie. I look forward to it and am ready any time to see the result.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 12:19pm

21. "and yes Imnobody, I know it with complete certainty" Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 11:48am _____

    ETA - crosspost with imnobody

    antisocialist:

    a true christian is humble enough before his/her g-d to refrain from arrogance and boastfulness before others.

    you may know christ, but you cannot know the mind of g-d or the true relationship of ANY other soul TO g-d.

    the "word of g-d" is subject to the scribes and translators of that word. if g-d is poetry, it is the divinity that is lost in translation and the very human imaginations of its servants.

    you do your faith no service or justice with the arrogant equation of your own vision with your g-d's, and you utter lack christ's charity.

    Posted by adeba at 04/14/2009 @ 12:30pm

22. ps. & um, antisocial? jesus was absolutely mum on queers, dear. not word one. nowhere, nohow. & given his penchant for spelling sins out, the omission is glaring in its tolerance....

    Posted by adeba at 04/14/2009 @ 12:35pm

23. "It's on that basis that we hold with certainty the word of G-d"

    snake oil

    if i knew where antisocialist preached, i would have him arrested for fraud.

    Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 12:37pm

24. antisocialist, if an animal, say a female bonobo, isn't aware that she is commiting a sin by rubbing her female friends' genitals.....will her soul die when her body dies?

    if i share 97% of my DNA with bonobos, and i rub my female friends' genitals, will my soul die when my body dies?

    if homosexuality exists across various species, isn't it therefore "natural"? and if something is "natural", then how can it be sinful? and if humans do something that is "natural", then why is it sinful?

    Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 12:40pm

25. Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 11:48am

    And I asked YOU...do you have any evidence that Rush Limbaugh repented for any or all of his three divorces?

    Otherwise...you support an unrepentant sinner, don't you?

    Posted by Mask at 04/14/2009 @ 12:51pm

26. antisocialist-Actually,all of you have doubts and you would not be human if you didn't.Jesus did not testify that the word given to the Jews was true nor do Christians believe that which is why they do not go by any of it.When did Jesus say that He revealed these truths to those who came before Him?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/14/2009 @ 12:56pm

27. antisocialist, if an animal, say a female bonobo, isn't aware that she is commiting a sin by rubbing her female friends' genitals.....will her soul die when her body dies?

    if i share 97% of my DNA with bonobos, and i rub my female friends' genitals, will my soul die when my body dies?

    if homosexuality exists across various species, isn't it therefore "natural"? and if something is "natural", then how can it be sinful? and if humans do something that is "natural", then why is it sinful?

    Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 12:40pm

    Animals do not have souls and thus cannot sin. they are not created in the image of G-d (they are not eternally spiritual beings). They cannot exercise a decision of the will to do something they have been commanded not to do.

    This past weekend, my wife was furious with our dog who has been commanded for years to not lie in the living room. Lately he sneaks in there daily. She yelled out, "he knows better." I told her, no, he's a dog and he doesn't really know better. In the end, his dog nature is going to seek out whatever it wants; there is no moral contemplation involved.

    The act of doing something does not make it either natural or acceptable. It may seem natural to scratch your genitals because of an itch, but doing so in public does not make it acceptable.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 1:10pm

28. antisocialist-Having straight people determine if being gay is a choice or natural makes as much sense as having your plumber decide what your doctor should do to treat your medical condition or having men describe child birth.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/14/2009 @ 1:21pm

29. antisocialist-Having straight people determine if being gay is a choice or natural makes as much sense as having your plumber decide what your doctor should do to treat your medical condition or having men describe child birth.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/14/2009 @ 1:21pm

    Only in the minds of those who deny G-d and His authority and Holiness.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 1:30pm

30. antisocialist-The fact that I believe in God and believe in God's authority and holiness makes your statement quite incorrect,but I did notice that you failed to respond in any way that would show that this is a subject that you would know about..You are basing your opinion on a book that tons of humans had a hand in writing and not on anything related to your personal knowledge making your opinion just as meaningful as a mans opinions when it comes to the subject of child birth.Yes,men can read up on the subject,but that is not the same thing as experiencing the subject.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/14/2009 @ 1:42pm

31. "Animals do not have souls"

    i can't stop laughing (or crying) at this

    Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 1:42pm

32. Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 1:42pm

    No surprise, DD.

    Larry doesn't think the Neanderthals had souls either.

    Posted by Mask at 04/14/2009 @ 2:15pm

33. No surprise, DD.

    Larry doesn't think the Neanderthals had souls either.

    Posted by Mask at 04/14/2009 @ 2:15pm

    Be honest with Darla, Mask. Do you think that animals or Neanderthals had souls?

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 2:25pm

34. Arguing with true believers is pointless. Nothing anti-socialist has posted is worth rebuttal. Nothing you say can sway someone like him/her who is possessed by religious zealotry.

    Posted by mortsel at 04/14/2009 @ 2:29pm

35. "Do you think that animals or Neanderthals had souls?"

    come on, if you believe in the existence of souls, then how arrogant can you possibly get to believe that only homo sapiens sapiens have souls, and not all living matter?

    what you are arguing is that, the larger the brain, the more evidence there is of a soul.

    and, for chrissakes, we EVOLVED from single-celled organisms, out of the water, onto land. at what point were we given a soul? only when we started walking upright and shaving our backs?

    Posted by darladoon at 04/14/2009 @ 2:40pm

36. Posted by i'm nobody at 04/14/2009 @ 1:42pm

    Actually your statements speak that you do not respect or acknowledge G-d's authority or holiness. You are saying that it can't be known. You cannot respect or obey what cannot be known.

    Since you do not believe the Bible to be the word of G-d, it cannot have authority.

    And since Jesus proclaimed Himself to be the Word of G-d, you are denying Him and thus He said you deny the Father.

    Luke 8:21, Mark 8:38, John 1:1, John 3:34, John 6:63 (My words are spirit and they are life), John 12:48 He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him--the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day, John 17:8, Acts 13:46, 1 John 5:7 (For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.)

    Revelation 19:13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

    Logos (In Aramaic, it was Memra)

    http://www.rational-persuasion.com/logos.html

    This was not some later theme but affirmed by early leaders like Ignatius, 3rd Bishop to Ephesus who wrote around 70AD

    Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians 30-107 a.d.] "...there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word..."

    [Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians] "...there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man..."

    In the Targums in the book of Deuteronomy it was spoken that the Memra (the Word)

    "When the Memra of Yahweh shall reveal himself to redeem his people, he will say to all nations; behold now, I am He who Am and Was and Will be and there is no other God beside me; I in my Memra kill and make alive..." (Deu32:39)

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 3:00pm

37. antisocialist-Actually,my statements do not say that I do not respect God or acknowledge God's authority and that is,also, obvious from my numerous statements over the years on the subject nor is that your decision to make,but I'm not surprised that you believe that it is.And,as I have stated numerous times and should be obvious because I capitalize Him when referring to Jesus,I do believe in Jesus and do believe in the truth of the gospels and that includes quite a bit of what is in the gnostic gospels. I did not say that God cannot be known,but stated that we can get glimpses,but cannot know God as long as we have a human mind,but that does not mean that one must die to get to know God better.We can reduce the mind's desires in order to get better in touch with God.Even most atheists are against the basic sin stuff when it comes to murder,theft,adultery,and the other nastier stuff so humans do not need God or any religion in order to prohibit those things.It's the lesser issues is where we have different views and my views on the subject of gays and gay marriage comes from the idea that it's best to do as little judging as possible which is consistent with the teachings of Jesus and I will not be judged for my views on gays because I did not judge people who are not hurting me or mine or anyone else..Christians do not follow the OT so you and I differ only when it comes to Paul,but Jesus never mentioned Paul,but did warn about false people following Him claiming to speak in His name so I give only Jesus authority and not Paul..

    Posted by i'm nobody at 04/14/2009 @ 3:44pm

38. (and yes Imnobody, I know it with complete certainty).

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 11:48am

    Weird. All those fundy terrorists no it with certainty too. Who's right?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/14/2009 @ 6:41pm

39. Why again do we care what these "true believers" actually believe? I once met a lovely woman in the north of England who in her deepest heart believes in gnomes. While this dosn't make her a bad person she is certainly someone who's views I take with a grain of salt. However should she tell me that the gnomes have written a book regarding the behavior of humanity and that I should live according to their edicts I will leave her and her gnome loving ilk utterly alone and would recommend that my clear minded friends do the same. And should the gnome believers engage a conversation regarding academic theories so nuanced that people who have devoted the better part of their lives to their study often come away with knitted brows we have no choice but to look at these gnome believing blowhards and laugh an unbelieving laugh.

    Posted by thespeck at 04/14/2009 @ 6:42pm

40. hi there, asocialist!

    I just got off the phone with God. We were chatting about other things, and then He brought up the subject of your disrespect for Eve Sedgwick, whom He loved dearly.

    He is, obviously, very displeased with your public rudeness towards her.

    The good news is that He is very forgiving, and is willing to let it go if you say "sorry" to him next time you get the chance.

    He also thinks it would be great if you got out of the house a little more. Maybe hung out with some gay friends, just relaxed a little, learned more about people different from you. He's fairly patient about this, though, as he understands it might not happen this lifetime.

    Posted by canaro71 at 04/14/2009 @ 11:03pm

41. Weird. All those fundy terrorists no it with certainty too. Who's right?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/14/2009 @ 6:41pm

    Do you believe that Jesus was a liar, crazy, or G-d in the flesh?

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 11:05pm

42. He also thinks it would be great if you got out of the house a little more. Maybe hung out with some gay friends, just relaxed a little, learned more about people different from you. He's fairly patient about this, though, as he understands it might not happen this lifetime.

    Posted by canaro71 at 04/14/2009 @ 11:03pm

    I've been to 32 countries, mostly among the poor. How about you?

    I've ministered to the needs of the homeless and poor in South Central LA, anything similar for you?

    I've helped transvestite prostitutes change their lives and become productive members of society. and you?

    I've fed, provided blankets and coats to the homeless in Vegas. and you?

    Since only about 1-2% of the population are practicing homosexuality, I haven't met more than 5-6 in my life and I'm 60.

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 11:18pm

43. hi asocialist! always a pleasure comparing notes with you!

    you know, there are those out there who would argue that tallying up good works rather defeats the point of altruism... so I'll decline the opportunity to list my own here...

    ... but you haven't really answered God's point. all this talk of good works really just distracts from what He wants to discuss with you, which is the singular question of Eve, and his complete and total love for her as one of His own creations. He's still disappointed in your disrespect for her.

    "Ain't nobody can hate no other living soul and still hope to see God's face"

    [you really have the art of changing the subject down to a fine art, don't you?]

    incidentally, travelling to every country on earth doesn't guarantee that you ever have the grace to see a single human being around you for who they really are...

    all this talk of places visited and good deeds performed is a somewhat dizzying smokescreen for someone who thinks that in 60 years they only met 5 or 6 people who are homosexual (even by your own math that figure is wrong, unless you've really only met 500-600 people in 60 years, a figure that seems a little low to me....you met ten people a year on average? your whole life? how in the hell did you minister to poor people in 32 countries and only meet ten people a year on average?)

    Posted by canaro71 at 04/14/2009 @ 11:39pm

44. Do you believe that Jesus was a liar, crazy, or G-d in the flesh?

    Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 11:05pm

    I believe Jesus was a good guy who did good things. I don't think he was God in the flesh. I don't think he was crazy and I don't think he was a liar. I think the Bible is a bunch of exaggerations that have grown larger as the telephone has gotten farther around the circle simple as that. Jesus didn't write the Gospels, Jesus didn't make the claims about himself, as far as we know PEOPLE made the claims about Jesus. I could apply your argument to Muhammed, Buddha and the prophets, followers and scribes of many other religions.

    What you refuse to see is that your truth is not the sole truth LVL. Your truth is based on how you perceive it. If you can give me conclusive evidence that Jesus was the song of God other than the Bible please feel free. But the majority of the rest of the world disagrees with you LVL and sacred texts are not factual evidence. Otherwise I can uphold that the Bhagavad Gita or the Quran are also factual evidence which invalidates anything you present to me. In the end the Bible in the eyes of history if it is held as evidence and fact is immediately invalidated by the conflicting views of the other books you then also have to hold as fact.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/15/2009 @ 01:49am

45. Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 11:18pm

    Didn't God tell us to be humble before him? Not to hold our deeds above the heads of others as if they give us extra credit? Your opinions are not increased by the deeds you have carried out. You seem to have missed the humble part.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/15/2009 @ 01:52am

46. "Psalms 138:6 Though the LORD be high, yet hath he respect unto the lowly: but the proud he knoweth afar off."

    "Luke 14:11 For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."

    "Proverbs 3:34 Surely he scorneth the scorners: but he giveth grace unto the lowly." That one is off topic but it's an interesting quote considering LVL loves to scorn others.

    "Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips. (Proverbs 27:2) "

    Just a few.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 04/15/2009 @ 02:00am

47. Do you believe that Jesus was a liar, crazy, or G-d in the flesh?----Posted by antisocialist at 04/14/2009 @ 11:05pm

    Larry, C.S. Lewis technically wasn't using that argument as an argument for Jesus' veracity, but against those who wanted to accept his moral teachings but not his divinity.

    And actually, you and Lewis forget a FOURTH OPTION...."misquoted by his friends".

    Since Jesus wrote NONE of the Bible, did he?

    Posted by Mask at 04/15/2009 @ 08:04am

48. Sedgwick made major contributions to theory and literary studies. I've read and studied her work and deeply appreciate the others who have done the same.

    On another note, it sounds like there are a few souls on here who have nothing better to do than pass judgment on those they know nothing about. Perhaps those souls would like to continue their work with those they consider "less fortunate" and leave the judging to the God they believe in. It's my experience that those who claim to know God the most are those farthest from any notion of truth.

    Posted by ljh32 at 04/15/2009 @ 6:50pm