GQ magazine puts Bible on list of classic books not worth reading
I long ago concluded that GQ was on my list of periodicals not worth reading. Something about what I saw of the publication having little to do with the behavior of a gentleman, if I remember right. In that light, what a surprise that the hedonists at GQ don’t like the Scriptures, or really a lot of thoughtful literature to boot. For them, the big questions in life include “9 Tips for having a happy, clean, and consensual music festival hookup.” Shocker that they’d not be terribly fond of passages like Matthew 5:27-30, no?
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Bah… disconnected in the middle of a comment post.
Anyway, I’m not crazy about a number of the books they call “classic literature.” But the reasoning—plus the “who’s who” of feminist, LGBT, pagan, intersectional, and (at best) postmodernist works suggested to replace them—is infinitely worse.
How many on their deathbeds have asked someone to read to them the Bible?
On the other hand, how many on their deathbeds asked someone to read to them the latest issue of GQ?
How can a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed according to Your word. -Psalm 119:9 NKJV
David R. Brumbelow
https://www.gq.com/story/21-books-you-dont-have-to-read
The Holy Bible is rated very highly by all the people who supposedly live by it but who in actuality have not read it. Those who have read it know there are some good parts, but overall it is certainly not the finest thing that man has ever produced. It is repetitive, self-contradictory, sententious, foolish, and even at times ill-intentioned. If the thing you heard was good about the Bible was the nasty bits, then I propose Agota Kristof’s The Notebook, a marvelous tale of two brothers who have to get along when things get rough. The subtlety and cruelty of this story is like that famous sword stroke (from below the boat) that plunged upward through the bowels, the lungs, and the throat and into the brain of the rower. —Jesse Ball, ‘Census’
[Bert Perry] I long ago concluded that GQ was on my list of periodicals not worth reading. Something about what I saw of the publication having little to do with the behavior of a gentleman, if I remember right. In that light, what a surprise that the hedonists at GQ don’t like the Scriptures, or really a lot of thoughtful literature to boot. For them, the big questions in life include “9 Tips for having a happy, clean, and consensual music festival hookup.” Shocker that they’d not be terribly fond of passages like Matthew 5:27-30, no?
I get to agree 100% with Bert! :-)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
…from John Schroeder, a writer in Hugh Hewitt’s organization. Notice what he does—he more or less eviscerates the writing by pointing out it’s in the 1st person, meaning each entry is most likely one editorial writer with an axe to grind, and furthermore points out that the criticism really has more to do with each writer’s personal life than with the literature itself.
We have “solipsism” as a national theology, evidently, at least as far as GQ is concerned.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
http://babylonbee.com/news/nation-patiently-awaits-gq-article-calling-k…
Nation Patiently Awaits GQ Article Calling Koran Overrated
Discussion