How accurate are the Gospels as historical sources? Are there contradictions?

Recommended reading charts. (Look here before asking for vague recs)
https://mega.nz/folder/kj5hWI6J#0cyw0-ZdvZKOJW3fPI6RfQ/folder/4rAmSZxb
>Archive:
https://warosu.org/lit/?task=search2&search_subject=sffg
>Goodreads:
https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/1029811-sffg
>Previous:
>>24496895
>Thread Question:
Who are your favorite mothers within Science Fiction and Fantasy?

Christianity is basically one giant cope for the spiritually feminine. It’s the ultimate fantasy of being loved no matter how pathetic you are—just believe, cry a little, and wait for your cosmic husband to bleed out for you. You're not expected to become powerful or clear-minded; you're expected to kneel, confess, and beg Daddy Jesus to fix your mess. It flatters weakness, exalts victimhood, and glorifies obedience. You’re the bride, the sheep, the child—never the warrior. The whole system is designed to keep you emotionally dependent, spiritually infantilized, and endlessly grateful to a savior who does all the heavy lifting. You’re not here to awaken. You’re here to weep and worship.
Christ isn’t your king—he’s your wartime husband in a soap opera. He gets nailed to a plank so you can feel special and cry about how much he loves you. The believer is the weepy wife archetype, waiting at home while strong man-Jesus goes off to battle the big bad demons. It’s spiritual Stockholm Syndrome. You’re told you’re worthless without him, dirty without his blood, doomed without his grace. Meanwhile, you're fed this romantic delusion that suffering is holy and that loyalty is strength. But there’s no real transformation—just emotional masturbation dressed up as faith. Christianity isn't a path to power; it's a spiritual love story for people too broken to stand up on their own.

We need to have a serious talk about Schelling, /lit/. For too many people Schelling is the man who broke out of the crude subjectivism of Kant and Fichte and made philosophy take nature seriously for the first time as nature, not merely a product of divine activity or an arena for human acting, a genuine subject-object of which consciousness is only the highest expression - a living nature, not a great big determino-mechanistic system like in Spinoza.
This is the story Schelling tells about himself but it is false. Fichte had already unified nature and consciousness - as early as 1796 he is writing about the distinction being nothing but 'appearance'. And even in his (in)famous 1795 Foundation of the Entire Wissenschaftslehre the second and third foundational principles are expressions of this unity, while his first principle is, not a mere abstraction of the empirical I, the task of thinking oneself from the Introductions, but God (as he affirms in a 1795 letter to Jacobi as well as in his 1799 lectures), prior to both nature and consciousness. People think of Fichte as a crude subjectivist because they get filtered by his transcendental stance - he puts consciousness first and derives nature from it in order to save freedom and morality and show that they can coexist, not because consciousness actually is first. Only God is first, and the pure will itself is a synthesis of activity and limitation, not mere subjective activity. So nature is spoken of as a 'negative magnitude', as something we 'produce' in response to primitive limitation (the Anstoß), and so on, because of his particular stance. But if you follow him through his Jena system you will find him, in the Sittenlehre and the 1799 lectures especially, affirming the unity of the will, the intellect and the body, and of the body and nature as a whole.

Start reading this.

I'm reading 120 days of Sodom at this very moment and I can't lie, my mind have been impure for a really long while now. I need to detox. being a pervert is not really healthy especially if you're an incel :(

Previous:
>>24494682
Thread Theme:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WhdCl8dCTsg&pp=ygUjSSdsbCBiZSB3aXRoIHlvdSBhbHdheXMgYXBoZXggdHdpbnM%3D