Brandon, very curious to hear what this is about...

I'm sure that the question marks will make sense
once you tell us what a jackass for jesus is.

the thing that stands out immediately is the weight
of the first letter of each word. Those letters are
a tad bit dark.

the f in 'for' seems a little tall, too.

bj

I would be inclined to get rid of that large f. It
overpowers the two

I imagine you redrew the f to resemble a cross - it looks a bit uncomfortable - the weight is too much, as for the question marks if you rotate them and move the stop they will look more like j, once you have, try redrawing them to work with the weight of the other letters. However it strikes me that you are overpowering the copy.

stack the words maybe and use only 1 question mark. You got 3 different symbols taking place of characters in 1 logo.

it's a website i'm currently working on, essentially a different take on christianity. it's a reference when God in the old testament uses a donkey (jackass) to speak. So a jackass for jesus would be someone who doesn't have it all together, yet God chooses to use them anyway...


i actually didn't change the 'f' to look like a cross, just wanted it to line up with the bottom of the j's.

tim, i'm curious what exactly you mean about rotating the question mark to make it look better. I guess i don't really see it.

i'm going to see if i can thin out the j's and i'll post my changes hopefully later on tonite. Thanks for the input!

ok i reworked it, stacked it and put it into the image that i wanted to use. what do you think?<br><br><br>

I was thinking of this just to make it appear more of a crossover between j and

Get rid of the 'f'. 'for' shouldn't be the focus.

Don't use the one-letter-for-two-words thing either (second set). It rarely, if ever, actually works. I read that as 'ackass for esus'

While the donkey is cute, it's a bit too much. You have something clever going with the question marks, but throwing it inside an actual picture of a donkey is just way too literal and ruins 'aha!-ness' of it.

To be honest, I was initially offended that a Christian would have the lack of reverence for Jesus' name to use it alongside jackass. Personally, I still wouldn't do it, but after reading your explanation for the application I have softended my opinion

> I was initially offended that a Christian would have the lack
> of reverence for Jesus' name to use it alongside jackass.

Really? I think a Christian is the best person to do it.

hhp

In all fairness, I'm sure, once in a while, Jesus had a bit too much wine and made a jackass of himself in front of his buddies. We've all been there, right? ;o)

Fortunately, the Bible, I'm sure, had a pretty thorough and detailed editing policy so we probably weren't privy to these moments as much as we would be if J.C. had been born in oh...say Southern CA circa 2003.

I'm curious about how you are sure of these things. How did you arrive at these conclusions?

Randy

Not to distract this posting area too much from the typographic critique that it is meant for, but

I think Darrel is just assuming Jesus was human.
Some Churches say he was, others no.

hhp

I was just encouraging Darrel to examine the line I thinking that lead him to that conclusion.

Scott, you've found someone who disagrees with you about the accuracy of scripture. If you'd care to chat more feel free to email: randy(at)aquatoad.com.

Brandon, being somewhat familiar with Balam and his steed, can you say more about the question marks? I'd add that God seems to *prefer* using people who don't fit the bill because it clearly reveals Him as the enabler.

Randy

;o) <-- This is a smilie

It means I'm saying something in jest...with lightheardeness...tongue-in-cheek...in a friendly tone, etc...

I'm guessing Jesus was a regular guy with a famous Dad. That's just my opinion. I love religious discussions, but we probably stay somewhat on topic in here. Besides, I'm in no position to preach. ;o)

Sorry for the inadvertent tangent...

jesus is less important than the logotype

I don't know about that - I really like my gardener.

hhp

C'mon

It's ok, I know when my posts have been hijacked and when to step away from them and let them live a life of their own. :-D

On a more serious note, I came back to school and totally forgot all the files at home. So since I won't be posting anything else relevant to the original topic for about a week, feel free to talk away...

Scott, Jews read the Tanach, or Torah Shebiksav, which is not limited to the five books of Moses: the latter is a common misconception among gentiles. The term Torah by itself refers to the five books, but the Torah Shebiksav also contains the Nevi'im (Prophets) and Kesuvim (Writings). Altogether they form the Palestine Canon of 24 books; note that this is a different canon from that which was read in Christ's time: in Christ's time Jews read the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation of the Torah Shebiksav. After Christ's time, the Jews returned to the Hebrew text, but decided to leave out those books which had traditionally been part of the canon of scripture but for which they were unable to locate complete Hebrew manuscripts. These seven books are retained in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, but were removed by the Protestants in what you would refer to as 'content management', and are referred to by Protestants as the Apocryphal books. Catholics call them the Deuterocanonical books.

Jews, Catholics and Orthodox Christians all maintain a strong tradition of non sola scriptura; that is, unlike Protestants, they do not rely solely on scripture as a source of truth, but also on tradition and teaching authority. In Judaism, this tradition is traced to Moses and is called the Torah Sheb

On the contrary