/lit/ - Literature

WHETHER IT IS FITTING THAT /LIT/ APPRECIATES ST. THOMAS?

Objection 1: It would seem that it is unfitting that /lit/ appreciates St. Thomas, for St. Thomas is explicitly Christcuck. But /lit/ is full of degenerate sinners. Therefore /lit/ is not compatible with Christcuckery.

Objection 2: Furthermore, things are appreciated on account of their species. But /lit/ is specifically a Tibetan fingerpainting forum. Therefore as St. Thomas does not pertain to Tibetan fingerpainting, it would seem unfitting that /lit/ appreciates St. Thomas.

On the contrary, St. Thomas is comfy and based. Therefore it is eminently fitting that /lit/ appreciates St. Thomas, for /lit/ appreciates all things comfy and based.

I answer that, Our Lord said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick." (Matthew 9:12) Therefore as /lit/ consists entirely of sick and depraved individuals, it is fitting that /lit/ appreciates St. Thomas.

Reply to Objection 1: The term 'Christcuck' can be understood in two ways. First, as a reference to the individual's weakness and submission to Christ. But everyone on /lit/ is weak and submissive, so in this sense /lit/ is entirely compatible with Christcuckery. Second, as a synonym for 'Christian' itself. But /lit/ is manifestly compatible with Christianity, for Christ was sent for all men (Romans 1:5).

Reply to Objection 2: It is not only for their species that things can be appreciated, but for their genera also. Now, Tibetan fingerpainting forums and theological textbooks both inhabit the common genus of "wood, hay, straw—each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done." (1 Cor. 3:12, 13) Therefore it is fitting that /lit/ appreciates St. Thomas.