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