Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

39[crosstalk2] Re: What about "Xtalk"?

Expand Messages
  • Felix Just, S.J.
    May 25, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark Goodacre wrote:

      > On 25 May 99 at 9:23, Jack Kilmon wrote, quoting Jim West
      > > > It is, however, a bit ambiguous, and though no one else has pointed this
      > > > out, it may even be taken as a bawdy invitation.
      > >
      > > Eeeeks! That's right! I never thought of that. "X" on the internet can get
      > > you some very unwanted material on a search.
      > Yes -- I hadn't thought of that either. Thanks Jim. OK -- drop that
      > suggestion!

      I respectfully disagree, and think Mark's idea of "XTalk" is the best, for all
      the reasons he mentioned in his initial post.

      a) don't you usually need three "X"s for that sort of stuff on the internet?
      b) if anyone stumbles upon our group based on a search for X, they won't want to
      or be able to join anyway (isn't our membership restricted?)
      c) if they did stumble upon our group looking for that sort of stuff, maybe
      they'll be converted encountering the real Jesus through our discussions (like
      the woman of John 8, even if that story is not HJ material!)

      But seriously, Mark's best point is that X refers both to "cross" (even
      without atonement theology, don't HJ scholars at least admit THAT Jesus was
      crucified?!?), and to "Christ" (from the Greek we all know).

      So Mark, please don't capitulate and drop your great idea too quickly!

      Felix Just, S.J. -- Asst. Prof. of Theological Studies
      Loyola Marymount University -- 7900 Loyola Blvd.
      Los Angeles, CA 90045-8400 -- (310) 338-5933
      Web-Pages http://clawww.lmu.edu/faculty/fjust


      eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/crosstalk2
      http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
    • Show all 15 messages in this topic