/lit/ - Literature

>>15776572
Then how you know what bad

>>15639616
Nah, neither a zombie (they don't talk) nor a ghost:
>”Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”
Luke 24:39

>>14908153
>3 days later
>go to the local McIbrahim's
>see this guy with his crew

>>13346510
What about the research? A good bibliography may still be helpful even if the prose is abhorrent. But the bibliography of this 600-page behemoth is surprisingly spare, and utilizes discouragingly few primary sources. And from the get-go, I couldn’t help notice two noticeable absences from Jones’s bibliography: Camille Paglia and Pitrim Sorokin.

Paglia is an atheist and a feminist, but like Aldous Huxley before her, she understands conservatism better than most conservatives. Paglia knows the power of sex, and her Sexual Personae, for all its flaws, is one of the most compelling studies of sex ever created, and in Jones’s case could provide an undergirding to the larger theoretical construct. That Jones does not avail himself of Paglia’s work is a sign of weakness; it is here that Jones’s literary inadequacies overlap with his inadequate scholarship.

Let’s start here: Jones has habit of noting tacit connections between his characters rather than connecting the intellectual undercurrents which united them. This method moves along more like a conspiracy theory or a six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon game than scholarship. For example, in the early chapters, Jones repeatedly tries to unite the Marquis de Sade, William Godwin, Abbe Barruel. It really does not work; Jones is forced to use lame narrative devices such as speculating what Mary Wollstonecraft must have been thinking while she trudged through the blood-drenched Paris streets; speculations over how affected Percy and Mary Shelley were by Sade; huge leaps of faith over the effect the good priest Barruel had on later sex perverts. With regards to the English liberals, it is clear that Jones simply does not respect their work enough to learn it and refute it—Paglia's work would serve him well here. More than this, the idea that later sex-mongers were inspired by the Jesuit reactionary Barruel’s is largely speculation; even if it were true, who cares? There are countless secret societies; the question is why the secret societies promoting sexual perversion ended up so popular. Instead of adequately defining the relevant intellectual undercurrents, Jones is reliant on his vignettes and weak editorializing.

>>11323000

The bible.

>>8552087
I'm in the exact same position OP.
>if I could just know for certain that Christianity were true I would have no intellectual qualm about devoting myself to it, it would be difficult but I would be content
>not knowing makes me wonder how I should live my life, given that my lifestyle will change drastically given what assumptions I live under, especially since I'm a homosexual

"I would soon have renounced pleasure," say they, "had I faith." For my part I tell you, "You would soon have faith, if you renounced pleasure." Now, it is for you to begin. If I could, I would give you faith. I cannot do so, nor therefore test the truth of what you say. But you can well renounce pleasure, and test whether what I say is true.
- Blaise Pascal

Christianity general. Discuss matters of faith, books of the Bible, theology, denominational differences and politics, etc.

I'd like to start off by asking all the Christians we had in the last thread if they believe that Paul wrote all of the epistles traditionally ascribed to him. If it's true that several of the letters are pseudepigrapha, should they be removed from the canon?

Is there any red-letter church? What's the closest denomination with active congregations?

Books about Death and Suicide thread