Women love to sexualize themselves, but the moment a man points it out, he’s labeled toxic, misogynist, or creep.
She’ll go to a job interview with half her breasts hanging out, hoping her looks tip the scale in her favor.
But if a man says, You dressed like that for attention, suddenly he’s disrespectful.
She’ll wear yoga pants so tight that her body looks painted on, then post it online for thousands of thirsty likes.
But if a man comments, That’s revealing, he gets backlash—blocked, canceled, maybe even called a pervert.
At the club, she’ll dance half-naked, twerking in front of every man’s face.
But if a guy dares to say, You’re objectifying yourself,” she’ll scream, “Don’t sexualize me!” The #hypocrisy is glaring.
Here’s the truth: women want to objectify themselves, but on their own terms.
They crave the validation, but they want to control who is allowed to notice, who is allowed to speak & who is punished for stepping out of line.
Society plays along. Men get shamed for saying what everyone can clearly see.
Women can flaunt, expose & tease, but if a man calls it what it is, suddenly he’s the villain.
That’s the trap: #women set the stage, light the fire & fuel the attention, then condemn men for reacting to it.
It’s not about respect. It’s about power.
She gets to play both sides: a saint when she wants, a seductress when it benefits her & a victim the moment you expose her game
#feminism #slut #feminist #freethenipple
#gymculture #fashion #antifeminist #mgtow
Finally, found the desktop environment that allows easy switching of #wireguard VPN and that is #KDE, amazingly.
Oh wait, I think #Gnome does it too. Come on #Cinnamon, what are you waiting for?
Funny how Wireguard VPN on #Linux is still crappily implemented... At least for noobs like me. Maybe system admins have a different opinion
The supposed evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is a cornerstone of Christian theology, but it is heavily criticized by historians, theologians, and skeptics when examined through the lens of historical and critical analysis. The primary flaws are not necessarily in the existence of the stories themselves, but in their reliability and interpretation as historical fact.
Here are the major flaws with the evidence typically cited for the resurrection:
### 1. The Sources are Late and Not Independent
The main accounts of the resurrection are in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). The flaws with these as historical sources are significant:
* **Written Decades Later:** The earliest Gospel (Mark) is generally dated to around AD 65-70, about 35-40 years after the supposed events. The others (Matthew, Luke, John) were written even later, from AD 80 to as late as AD 95 or more. This is a long time for oral traditions to evolve, embellish, and become codified.
* **Not Eyewitness Accounts:** The Gospels are anonymous. The names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were attached to them later by church tradition. We do not know for certain who wrote them, and it is highly unlikely they were written by the actual disciples of those names. They are second- or third-hand accounts at best.
* **Literary Dependence:** Most scholars agree that the Gospels are not independent accounts. Matthew and Luke are known to have copied large portions of Mark. This means you don't have four separate attestations; you have one (Mark) that was later edited and expanded. This is not corroboration; it is plagiarism and theological development.
### 2. Theological Agenda and Legendary Development
The authors of the Gospels were not disinterested historians; they were theologians writing to persuade readers of Jesus's divine nature.
* **Writing to Convert, Not Report:** The purpose of the Gospels was evangelistic, not to create a modern historical record. Events were shaped to fulfill Old Testament prophecies and to make theological points. For example, the detail of Roman soldiers gambling for Jesus's clothes seems to be a direct insertion to "fulfill" Psalm 22:18.
* **Contradictory Accounts:** The resurrection narratives in the four Gospels contradict each other on key details. Who went to the tomb? How many angels or men were there? What did they say? Did the women tell anyone? Where did the post-resurrection appearances occur (Galilee or Jerusalem)? These discrepancies are what one expects from legendary accounts developing over time, not from a factual historical event being reported by reliable witnesses.
### 3. The Empty Tomb is Weak Evidence
The empty tomb is a central pillar, but it's an argument from silence with several alternative explanations that are more plausible than a supernatural resurrection.
* **Alternative Explanations:**
* **The Wrong Tomb:** In the chaos, the women (or disciples) simply went to the wrong tomb.
* **Body Moved by Authorities:** The Jewish or Roman authorities, concerned about the movement Jesus was starting, moved the body to a secret grave to prevent the tomb from becoming a shrine and stop his followers from claiming he had risen.
* **Body Moved by Disciples:** Jesus's own followers, perhaps Joseph of Arimathea, moved the body to a more suitable location for a proper Jewish burial after the hasty pre-Sabbath interment.
* **Tomb Robbery:** Grave robbery was not uncommon in the period.
* **Lack of Contemporary Evidence:** No non-Christian source mentions an empty tomb. The first mention is in the Gospels themselves. The story of the Roman guard at the tomb (found only in Matthew) is widely seen by scholars as a later theological invention to counter the accusation that the disciples stole the body.
### 4. Post-Resurrection Appearances are Subjective and Problematic
The accounts of Jesus appearing to his followers are the most personal "evidence," but they have serious issues.
* **Paul's Vision is the Earliest Account:** The earliest written account of an appearance is by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (written around AD 55). He describes his own experience as a "revelation" (Greek: *apokalypsis*), the same kind of heavenly vision he had elsewhere. He lumps his experience in with the others, suggesting they may have been of a similar subjective, visionary nature, not physical encounters.
* **Gospel Accounts are Later and Varied:** The physical, touchable Jesus of the later Gospels (especially Luke and John) may represent a theological development from the earlier, more spiritual visions. The fact that Paul, the earliest writer, doesn't mention an empty tomb or physical details is highly significant.
* **Psychological Phenomena:** The disciples were in a state of profound grief and trauma. They had dedicated their lives to a man who was just brutally executed. In such a state, powerful visions, hallucinations, or shared delusions (e.g., grief hallucinations) are psychologically plausible. They *wanted* to see him, and they interpreted their profound experiences through that lens.
### 5. Lack of Corroborating Evidence
For an event as world-shaking as a man coming back from the dead, the silence from contemporary, non-Christian sources is deafening.
* **No Roman or Jewish Records:** There are no official Roman records or Jewish accounts from the period (like from the historian Josephus, whose passage is a widely acknowledged later Christian forgery) that mention Jesus's resurrection, an empty tomb, or the disciples' claims.
* **No Archaeological Evidence:** There is no physical evidence to support any part of the story.
### 6. The Argument from Martyrdom is Circular
It's often argued that the disciples wouldn't have been willing to die for a lie. This argument is flawed.
* **Dying for a Belief is Not Proof:** People die for beliefs that are false all the time (e.g., members of cults like Heaven's Gate). Their willingness to die proves they were *sincere* in their belief, but it does not prove the belief itself is true.
* **Limited Evidence for Martyrdom:** The historical evidence for *how* most of the disciples died is sketchy and comes from much later, legendary accounts. We have solid historical records for the martyrdom of only James (the brother of Jesus) and possibly Peter. We don't know if most of the others were even martyred, let alone given the choice to "recant the resurrection or die."
In conclusion, the case for the resurrection relies entirely on theological texts written decades after the fact by unknown authors with an agenda to promote a faith. These texts are contradictory, show signs of legendary development, and lack any independent, contemporary corroboration. The supposed evidence—the empty tomb and the post-resurrection appearances—has far more plausible naturalistic explanations than a supernatural violation of the laws of biology. Therefore, from a historical-critical perspective, the evidence is exceptionally weak and cannot be considered proof of a physical resurrection.
Copied from VeniceAI
#atheist #Christianity #religion #faith #Jesus #theology #Easter #skeptic #atheism
#Hitchens #atheist #atheism #religion #afterlife #quote #hitchslap #skeptic
#iran #irandiaspora #iranrevolution #feminism #women #iranuswar #israel
