Print

Print


At 09:09 AM 11/9/2004 -0500, Marcia Karp wrote:
>Thank you, Will, for replying.
>
>Best,
>Marcia

Marcia et al,

  I've followed these threads with heightened interest and a frustrating
inability to contribute much thanks to the malfunctioning of my email
software at home (can read but not post). I also find it frustrating that
many questions that seem to arise naturally are ignored or nipped in the
bud or reproved. Was Will's response to which yours here, Marcia, is a
thanks in some way satisfactory, i.e. did he get it right in your view?
Christianity asserts that Jesus is the Christ, i.e. the Messiah. Is this
supersessionism, i.e. is Xtianity necessarily supersessionist?

  What does it mean to anyone here that this is a "secular list." I find
this a totally mystifying assertion. It could be there, but what I remember
from the Eliot list home page is that ANY subject relevant to Eliot is open
for exploration and discussion. To go to Eliot again, and only
paraphrasing, he says at one point that finally there are two and only two
ultimate views of (our) existence: the Catholic and the materialist. Are we
to be limited to the materialist view in our discussions of a poet who was
Catholic to the core? Of what value would that be? (I have an answer for
that last question, at least for the _effect_, much of which we see on this
list, of limiting the discussion thus.)

  I'd like to know why on God's green earth Nancy thinks Will would benefit
from adopting a Hindu or Jewish or  Muslim view, calls his language
problematic while proposing this at least equally problematic "cure," and
to boot calls Eliot "unchristian"!!! Talk about a problematic approach to
things....every cake-eater should be such a cake-haver. Discussion could do
the right thing and just drop dead on the spot.

  OK, I'm late now, so adieu, perhaps I'll be able to read your replies at
home and stew until I get a chance to answer from my work machine.

  L8ter,
  Ken A