/lit/ - Literature

>>7867319
I Like it.

how come all tv shows make fun of patrician book readers like lit is a joke

What books should I read to understand human sexuality and how that governs our social life? I want to know what is "natural"... the ideal seems to be monogamy. In practice though, monogamy seems only good for social stability and it is apparently understood, but mostly unspoken, that people will always have liaisons, so to speak.

Another one by Kramskoi. Someone once told me this was the cover of their Anna Karenina.

>>7049761

>>6942774

"Falling on his knees by her bedside he held his wife's hand to his lips, kissing it, and that hand, by a feeble movement of the fingers, replied to the kisses. And meanwhile at the foot of the bed, like a flame above the lamp, flickered in Mary Vlasevna's skilful hands the life of a human being who had never before existed: a human being who, with the same right and the same importance to himself, would live and would procreate others like himself.

Alive! Alive! ..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnLt6nJPty8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d5X2t_s9g8

the Smiths, Herzog in general, Portrait & the last bit of the Dead, In Search of Lost Time

>>5847241
>Just those that disagree with my favorite blogger's book

There are about five attempts on the internet that try to refute Caesar's Messiah. I recall two of them who have the aforementioned History of religion B.A.. The others are anonymous. Keep grasping at straw, two nobodies with are B.A aren't respected historians.

>author in question literally does not name the college he went to...where he didn't even study history
Atwill is an autodidact Bible scholar. I know this upset people like you who terribly rely on authority, but freethinkers will keep thinking. Shitposters like you will keep shitposting.

>none presented in the thread for the self-labeled conspiracy theory
Now you're just baiting
>>5844783
>>5845461
>>5845532
All this posts present arguments, especially the second one. Ignore the material evidence and rely on group/magic thinking is the credo of christians apologists.

And I don't see why you're repeating your terrible analogy. Do you think it has literary merit? If so, you're more deluded than I thought.