/lit/ - Literature

>>18140118
>. My primary concern is that I would like to make sure his homosexuality doesn't color his scholarship.
get a lobotomy

>>18140124
This is a valid concern to have. Ideologues and people who have personal stake in something often write with the worst kind of bias

>>18140273
If you’re scared, fuck off back to your bible

>>18140124
He is right you idiot. Imagine being so full of yourself to the point of rejecting whatever does not fit into your sexually ephemeral preferences. His case with Christianity is even worse because he knew it, was immersed in it and rejected all what it implies metaphysically, morally for personal frivolities..

>>18140124
>>18140332
Jesus, guys. That is a legitimate question to ask when dealing something like Christianity which has explicit doctrines unwelcoming to homosexuality.
Would you have the same reaction if I recommended George Lincoln Rockwell's well-regarded biography of Malcolm X?

>>18140332
You will never be a woman.

>>18140332
Wtf is your problem butters. Are you really so stupid and shallow to not understand how such a subject requires a lot of nuance and most definitely needs to avoid someone's sexual qualms with the doctrines espoused by this particular religion encroaching on the way they present it? I understand you're a tranny and all but get over yourself and use your mind for once

>>18140273
>>18140355
>>18140375
>>18140408

>>18140425
? are you genuinely retarded? What does that have to do with anything?

>>18140118
It's written by a faggot and constantly refers to Muhammad as "The Prophet", what do you think?

>>18140375
I would simply not be reading it.

>>18140415
The book requires that nuance, but some Catholics are too chicken shit to read a book that makes them think (or maybe not) about a subject that makes their tummy queasy.
The choice is binary, easy.

>>18140444

>>18140425
Reread my post. I have nothing against homosexuals and in the case of the author his irrationality is even more scandalous for he chooses to abandon his own spirituality in favor of mere sexual inclinations, as if it were only gay people who have to struggle against it or as if it were secondary to that.

>>18140118

>>18140444
any fair reading will try to understand the historical context of charges of sodomy that are now often equated with our contemporary understanding of homosexuality, but if the author himself is a homosexual and has something personal at stake, then OP is right to be worried if the author's homosexuality doesn't cause him to read things into his presentation that we either simply don't know or simply aren't there or cause him to try and revise or euphemise certain positions held by Christianity because of any insecurities the author himself might have by virtue of being a homosexual Christian himself. You're just being unnecessarily vitriolic for no reason

>>18140444
>but some Catholics are too chicken shit to read a book that makes them think (or maybe not) about a subject that makes their tummy queasy.
Such as what?

>>18140444
>The book requires that nuance, but some Catholics are too chicken shit to read a book that makes them think (or maybe not) about a subject that makes their tummy queasy.
I'm not a Catholic, nor do I belong to any other Christian denomination. At the moment my interest lies solely with the history of the religion and tradition. If I want to read a homosexuals perspective on Christian history then I will read a book advertising its contents as such, but right now I'm not interested in doing so.

>>18140425
Add Camille Paglia to the bottom of the image

>>18140453
Rude

>>18140489
>If I want to read a homosexuals perspective on Christian history then I will read a book advertising its contents as such, but right now I'm not interested in doing so.
You're assuming that is the case already. If you already believe that, then don't read it, it is as simple as that. Do you have solid evidence, such as reviews or excerpts, that actually show that the author's sexual orientation impacts or distorts his arguments? If not, you're only going by assumptions and looking for confirmation bias.

>>18140546
Stop being so defensive. OP is not assuming or claiming anything. It is precisely bc he doesn't know if this is the case that he's asking us if that is the case

>>18140546
I haven't made any assumptions, but I accept it as a very real possibility. I only made this thread to hear from others who have read the book. His work seems quite impressive to me, in fact, but I haven't read it myself. I would simply like to get some more opinions before I find myself disappointed, wasting my time and my money.

>>18140332
Get off my board.

>>18140525
Butterfly, you'll never be as pixelated as her. Even in your prime, you were less pixelated than her right shoulder, and now, everyday, you become more and more high definition.

>>18140546
It's probably much more silly to assume his homosexuality WOULDNT have an effect on his writings on Christian history, not the other way around

>>18140569
Not being defensive (first post in this thread), but the way he's writing his posts shows that he very probably has already made his mind on the subject, and assumes that if the sexual orientation of some author will color his scholarship. How is that any different from liberal feminists slamming "white male writers"?

>>18140580
As I said, if you haven't found any criticism regarding that matter on reviews (not even about his homosexuality, but about his scholarship), then I see no reason to believe that there is a reason to worry. So far nobody here has said anything regarding that matter either, so I assume that either nobody has read it or your worries are unfounded.

>>18140605
Any such assumption is silly.

>>18140580
Shit man, you could have probably just checked fucking wikipedia's entry on the book and read the reception/reviews there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Christianity:_The_First_Three_Thousand_Years
The only real criticism anyone notes is a certain secular bias. Fucking /lit/ can't even be bothered to read wikipedia but cares about whether the writers is a fag or not, go figure.

>>18140598
>you'll never be as pixelated as her
I have no booze in the house. Of course not.

>>18140613
>Author writes subject on religion that forbids authors lifestyle/identity/behaviour
>Such acts are highly emotionialized and politicized in modern society
>No expectation that he will be biased and fair in his presentation

Come on

This was an extremely good book, and I've read a few church histories.

>>18140652
To be fair, the book is from 2009, and twelve years ago that shit was not as virulent as today. But I insist: OP could have read some reviews and be reassured about his worries, but of course assuming shit is easier. I suppose I can't blame op tho. As you say, these things are highly emotionialized and politicized nowadays. I guess it speaks more about our zeitgeist than about op. And yet, MacCulloch doesn't seem to be one of the rainbow-puking IdPol shitters you see around today. Guy seems very erudite and religious, a simple google search could have shown him that.

>>18140666
Check'd, thanks for clearing things up here, Satan.

>>18140677
I actually agree with you tee bee aych, was just being a wanker on the internet. OP should do some googling. Probably quite a few Christian reviews on this one if it's more prominent amongst church history.

Take care lah

>>18140666
>checked Satan
>extremely good book
>on Christian History
>by a faggot
There's your answer right there, OP, God is showing you clear signs.

>>18140677
>>18140689
It probably wouldn't have hurt to google it a bit more before making the thread, but I find I generally get better, more thorough responses when I make threads/ask questions directly. I appreciate the helpful responses in this thread, anyway.

>>18140332
why are you so rude these days? absolutely disgusting.

>>18140677
Hitchens said he liked it. Out of all the New Atheists, he was the best at being contrarian without coming off like he had a chip on his shoulder (Dawkins) or a general instinct toward smuggness (Harris).

>>18140444
>Catholics don't want to read media that's been made by degenerate/immoral/satanic people
>"They're just chickenshit"
Retard