Print

Print


Dear Ken,

You misread and then answer your own version of everything I say.  Will
would benefit from adopting another point of view (the colloquial
expression is "walk a mile in my shoes") in exactly the same way he
seems to think others would benefit from adopting his.  Except he claims
his is simply true as a given.  Others do not share this point of view.

And evangelizing for a specific form of institutionalized Christianity
is in no way necessarily discussing Eliot.  For one thing, it is nothing
like the Christianity Eliot claimed.  But be that as it may, if your
misrepresentation and response were accurate, it would mean that sermons
posted on the list would be discussions of Eliot.

If you wish to discuss Eliot's religion, by all means do.  And I am the
one who in general is opposed to shutting people off.  But an endless
series of sermons is an offense.

As I have said, there is a history to this, as Will knows.  But I am
deeply and personally offended by being told that no matter what I spend
my life trying to understand and care for and even choose as good is
inevitable damnation because there is one truth and Will has it.

As far as I can see, many others also do not experience it as loving.

I realize you have a mad need to goad me and I am buying into it, but
at least try to respond to what I actually say.

I am quite aware that you will find a way to distort and rage at this
and I find myself doing what I hate--using the list for stupidly
personal reactions.  I'll try to ignore the next onslaught.
Nancy

>>> [log in to unmask] 11/9/04 5:19:26 PM >>>
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