So it's fairly likely it really was only a couple, but they were already devout and already had teammates to go and start this new church, which explains their success and gumption in starting a new church. Within a few years the descriptions of Jesus post-crucification become more and more elaborate and more and more robust against doubt. Essentially, as the disciples encountered resistance to their word, their stories became harder and harder to refute. Afterall, what's a little embellishment when you're trying to save people's souls? In the earliest gospels we have, Jesus is only seen by a few people and he ascends almost immediately. It's not until the later gospels that we get Doubting Thomas and Jesus walking around for 40 days before ascending.
The way statistics work, 1000 people is more than adequate for a population the size of Israel. It's honestly overkill, if anything. The real question is "are the respondents a representative sample?" That is, is the way you chose who to question and how to question them introducing any systemic bias in your results? For this survey, if everyone lived in the West Bank, that would be a clear source of bias in the data. But if people are randomly selected by, say, phone number, then you would have to worry about more subtle biases before agreeing that the data is sound.
He claimed God was about to show up and judge everyone for their sins and then start a new world order. But then he got killed by the state and one or two of his followers had hallucinations of him a few days later (more common than you think). They essentially then rationalized WTF him coming back from the dead meant, and that morphed into Jesus being God. The first few decades after his death was a whirlwind of arguing about the "true" nature of Jesus and standardization within the baby church. Over the next few centuries there were more arguments that were less fundamental than turning Jesus into a God, though being a religion, the arguments were insane and fierce. Cue to today and we have a bunch of sub-versions of Christianity and even a whole spin-off religion.
The first check I got from my first job was for $0.00 because I hadn't worked enough to pay off my uniform. I still have it framed. I was also being paid a sub-minimum training-period wage. America's labor laws are fucked.
It's my understanding that ecologists generally agree we could eradicate human-biting mosquitos and it wouldn't cause any real problems. Yes, other species eat them, but they're not a critical species in any ecosystem, apparently.
You know how there's those stories of scientists introducing a species into an ecosystem for one reason or another, and all sorts of unintended consequences happen? Ever notice how those stories are all from around the 1950s and earlier? It's because we actually got pretty good at thinking through all of the possible significant impacts. We only introduce/eradicate species now when we know doing so is a good idea and have worked through the consequences. But I want to be clear that I agree with your sentiment. You shouldn't intentionally change an ecosystem without serious planning and consideration for what will happen when you do.
Same reason software will make pointless UI changes. Keeping things fresh gives their users the "exciting" feeling of novelty without having to switch platforms.
I suggest switching to Approval Voting for single-winner elections and
Sequential Proportional Approval Voting for legislatures in order to break the two party system and let people support parties and candidates they actually like. Lemme know if you want pointers on how to switch your local system.
Okay but the butt-hugging going on in the left image doesn't make much sense given the fabric. Left butt should just have that connecting middle part added. No need to make it smaller.
Gotta switch to proportional representation if you want to break up the two parties. I suggest Sequential Proportional Approval Voting for multi-winner elections, and pair it with regular Approval Voting for single-winner elections. Both can be implemented at every level in the US, and some places can do so by referendum. Lemme know if you're interested.
I once encountered a system that truncated your submitted password if you logged in through their app, but not through their website. So you would set your password through the website, verify that the login was working (through the website) and then have that same login fail through the app.
Liz @ Liz @midwest.social Posts 14Comments 1,743Joined 2 yr. ago
Elephants will eat each other's shit. I've seen an elephant reach onto another's anus and pull out some delicious shit to eat.