/lit/ - Literature

>>23106207
Fag

Where do intelligent people conglomerate?

>>22063487
>24
>Alabama
"Joan of Arc: Her Story" by Regine Pernoud and Marie-Veronique Clin

What are the best poetic history books?

What's the best written work on Joan of Arc?

The only girl I've ever loved
Was born with roses in her eyes
But then they burned her alive
One morning 1431
With just her sister at her side
And only weeks before the arrows
All came and rained on everyone

>>17037177
ofc pic must be psoted too

>>15388983
>>15388986
These are a lot of well-thought out points and they deserve a well-thought out answer.

First off, the argument that the Mosaic covenant is a conspiracy against the nations. It is not actually a conspiracy, because Israel is in no better position with God if they fail to be the kind of nation God wants. They of course do fail, and consequently are driven into exile because they don't live by faith, instead they live according to mere selfish desires or their own false ethical beliefs. The New Covenant (i.e. Christians) however do have a similar conspiracy if you will, but that conspiracy is against the world, and Israel is replaced with the Kingdom of God. The world has a theological meaning as being the sum of human falsity; power, status, wealth and ethics in which these are valued.

Secondly the argument that Satan and God are not very different is entirely true, Satan just means Accuser, he's an angelic lawyer essentially, but still an angel, and with great persuasive ability as we see in Job. Something Christians don't tend to admit is that God is not directly concerned with their ethical beliefs, God only accepts self-surrender to God, and that is a dangerous proposition. People don't like it since while valuing self-surrender to God is an ethical value, it can conflict with other ethical values. I don't know why you didn't mention Abraham's attempt to sacrifice his son; the reason Abraham is patriarch is because he passed the test of faith unrestrained by any ethical values.

You see, I think that by focusing on God's morality you've missed the point of the narrative, namely that God's desire is for people to live like Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were innocent of morality and it was the tree of good and evil that brought about the fall. If you preserve this meaning, you understand that the Bible has nothing to do with morality, and that the God of the Bible views human morals as lies unless those morals find their metaphysical source in God's will. This is naturally too wild an idea for the majority of humanity to practice, since in this kind of world right and wrong become absolutely and radically relativistic to our perspective, and we would have to be comfortable with that, having faith that God is in control. It would be anarchy, which is why anarchism and revolutionary movements are a natural progression from Christian faith. In order to be an anarchist, you have to believe that people are endowed with a God-knowledge (or something fundamentally equivalent) that should be freed from the shackles of conventionality.

So my answer is in sum that you're sort of right, which is why we have a traditional distrust of Judaism, but we have a different take on the same ideas with the concepts of worldliness versus the Kingdom of God. A Gospel interpretation of the Old Covenant is that Israel represents the Kingdom of God at that time, against the worldly forces of the nations.

Joan of Arc was not stuck at the cross-roads, either by rejecting all the paths like Tolstoy, or by accepting them all like Nietzsche. She chose a path, and went down it like a thunderbolt. Yet Joan, when I came to think of her, had in her all that was true either in Tolstoy or Nietzsche, all that was even tolerable in either of them. I thought of all that is noble in Tolstoy, the pleasure in plain things, especially in plain pity, the actualities of the earth, the reverence for the poor, the dignity of the bowed back. Joan of Arc had all that and with this great addition, that she endured poverty as well as admiring it; whereas Tolstoy is only a typical aristocrat trying to find out its secret. And then I thought of all that was brave and proud and pathetic in poor Nietzsche, and his mutiny against the emptiness and timidity of our time. I thought of his cry for the ecstatic equilibrium of danger, his hunger for the rush of great horses, his cry to arms. Well, Joan of Arc had all that, and again with this difference, that she did not praise fighting, but fought. We KNOW that she was not afraid of an army, while Nietzsche, for all we know, was afraid of a cow. Tolstoy only praised the peasant; she was the peasant. Nietzsche only praised the warrior; she was the warrior. She beat them both at their own antagonistic ideals; she was more gentle than the one, more violent than the other. Yet she was a perfectly practical person who did something, while they are wild speculators who do nothing. It was impossible that the thought should not cross my mind that she and her faith had perhaps some secret of moral unity and utility that has been lost. And with that thought came a larger one, and the colossal figure of her Master had also crossed the theatre of my thoughts.

Joan of Arc was not stuck at the cross-roads, either by rejecting all the paths like Tolstoy, or by accepting them all like Nietzsche. She chose a path, and went down it like a thunderbolt. Yet Joan, when I came to think of her, had in her all that was true either in Tolstoy or Nietzsche, all that was even tolerable in either of them. I thought of all that is noble in Tolstoy, the pleasure in plain things, especially in plain pity, the actualities of the earth, the reverence for the poor, the dignity of the bowed back. Joan of Arc had all that and with this great addition, that she endured poverty as well as admiring it; whereas Tolstoy is only a typical aristocrat trying to find out its secret. And then I thought of all that was brave and proud and pathetic in poor Nietzsche, and his mutiny against the emptiness and timidity of our time. I thought of his cry for the ecstatic equilibrium of danger, his hunger for the rush of great horses, his cry to arms. Well, Joan of Arc had all that, and again with this difference, that she did not praise fighting, but fought. We KNOW that she was not afraid of an army, while Nietzsche, for all we know, was afraid of a cow. Tolstoy only praised the peasant; she was the peasant. Nietzsche only praised the warrior; she was the warrior. She beat them both at their own antagonistic ideals; she was more gentle than the one, more violent than the other. Yet she was a perfectly practical person who did something, while they are wild speculators who do nothing. It was impossible that the thought should not cross my mind that she and her faith had perhaps some secret of moral unity and utility that has been lost. And with that thought came a larger one, and the colossal figure of her Master had also crossed the theatre of my thoughts.

>>14476753
Does she look like this art of Jeanne d'Arc?

>>14140827
>Les Français et leur frère Européens vont vaincre les parasites et les sous-espèces de la société.
We gotta remember this, Eurobros

>>14053464
Because it is better to be in the company of careless intellectuals, than thoughtful fools.

How do people deny God is real and Anglos are the devil when Joan de Arc was a real person.

What's the best source I can read on Joan of Arc?

Bitter German pagan incel mad at superior French Christian-Chivalric culture

>>12213397
>where males dress like females, females as males
This isn’t a recent phenomenon. People have been doing this sort of shit since time immemorial. We have many real and severe problems, but this hand wringing over “degeneracy” is stupid.

modest trad gf > art hoe

>>11285846
Jeanne a best! A BEST!

Are there some good books that deal with Joan of Arc specifically? Fiction or non-fiction, anything goes.

>>10393085
>Dougherty
Who?

I read it as a born again Catholic and loved it. Obviously I can see why the gays like that novel though.