This is what He wanted.

It’s certainly possible that sayings of other people were later attributed to him, but to really make this case you’d need to have quotations that were attributed to multiple sources, including him, if you see what I mean. Absent that, it could be true, but there’s no particular reason to believe it.

There are enough specific biographical details about Jesus of Nazareth to make it likely that there’s a specific, real central figure. For example, the fact that he was from Nazareth was a problem for his early followers (it didn’t match the Messianic prophecies), which is why they invented the odd story of the census, so that they could claim he’d been born in Bethlehem, the hometown of King David, from whom Jesus was supposedly descended. That seems unlikely to have happened if there hadn’t been a real, central historical figure.

Also, none of the early non-Christian sources claim he wasn’t real or that he was a composite, which they surely would have done if there was any doubt on the matter.

I agree with you that Jesus wasn’t God, who doesn’t exist, and that there were no miracles, which are impossible. However, this is not the same thing as saying that there’s no evidence for the existence of Jesus, the Jewish apocalyptic preacher.

The earliest documents about Jesus, such as the Pauline Epistles, were written by people who knew people who knew him. In a mostly illiterate society 2,000 years ago, this is about as good as evidence gets. It’s also the exact same kind of evidence as a journalist or researcher writing an account based on interviews with people. This was how, e.g, Herodotus wrote his histories. When Herodotus says ‘A guy rode a dolphin once’ we dismiss that. But we don’t say ‘The people in the Histories didn’t exist, except those for whom there’s physical evidence, which is about three of them, not including the author’. We do much the same with Jesus and the miracles.

If the Apostles had wanted, for some reason, to make up a guy, that would have been risky. Other people would have just said, ‘That guy didn’t exist’. If they had anyway decided to make up a guy, they’d have invented someone who actually fulfilled the Jewish propehcies of the Messiah, instead of inventing Jesus, who obviously didn’t. This suggests they didn’t invent him, which strengthens the plausibility of the evidence we do have.

A third way of looking at this is to ask if there are any comparable figures, religious founders from the historic era, who we now think were wholly made up in the way you’re suggesting. But there aren’t. The Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed, Zoroaster - they all certainly existed. Indeed, I can’t think of any figures form the time period who were actually imaginary.

Dinosaurs aren’t people.

No. But physical proof is not the standard we use for determining someone’s historical existence.

Speaking as a guitarist, I have to say guitar is the easiest instrument to pick up and almost immediately make a cool sound with. Also, you can use guitar tab to play songs you’re familiar with. Tabs don’t really show rhythm, unlike sheet music, but are simple to read.

It sounds like a dial tone to me, with a lot of fuzz. Could be a pager, as doctors used to use them a lot.

I kinda think that if you can imagine a one-line fix to a plot hole, it isn’t really a plot hole.

I remember someone insisting to me that there was this huge plot hole in the film of the Fellowship of the Ring, because Merry and Pippin don’t get told about what Frodo and Sam are actually doing until the Council of Elrond, but still willingly run around risking life and limb to help them. Now, not only is this not a plot hole in itself (I’m pretty sure I’d help anyone fleeing a demonic horseman, just on principle, never mind if that person was my lifelong friend/cousin), it’s also quite obvious that they could have been told everything offscreen. The audience didn’t need to hear all that explanation again, five minutes after we first heard it.

A lot of plot holes people like to complain about are basically of this nature. ‘Can you imagine a fix?’ Yep, easily. ‘Did the audience need to hear it?’ Nope, because I could easily imagine it. ‘Well, there you go, then.’

I think it’s a category error to think of people as having (or having to have) a purpose. We just are.

If you can access her computer, you could mess with the autocorrect settings and replace common phrases with Christmas carols. Like, change her name to ‘Santa Claus’. Or change ‘Kind regards’ (or whatever she signs off emails with) to ‘Jingle bells’, etc.

I didn’t know that about the EU Parliament, very interesting.

I think for this to be at all practical, there would need to be some sort of minimum threshold and/or maximum number of legislators, yes.

It’s similar but it retains the constituency link, which many people feel is important.

Yes, pretty much that!

If a single person gets the majority of votes, then they get to make the decisions.

But there would be multiple constituencies in my hypothetical scenario. Someone from the Left Party in District A gets a majority of the District A votes, but someone from the Right Party from District B gets a majority of the District B votes. So, the majorities in Districts A and B get their voices effectively represented, but the minorities aren’t shut out. In District C, no one wins a majority, but all the voters are represented in the legislature.

Compare the current system, where the Left Party in District A gets the majority of votes (or even the most votes, but no majority). The Left Party wins District A, but there’s no representation at all for the voters who didn’t vote for the Left Party. Isn’t it easier to buy the vote of just the one Left Rep for District A?

Bitches Brew by Miles Davis.

I once got really stoned and fell asleep while listening to it on a loop. I had all these insane dreams where I was walking through a pitch black jungle. I could feel all this stuff, the different textures of plants, the ground under foot, animals brushing by in the night, but I couldn’t see anything: a totally non-visual dream. It wasn’t scary, just super weird. Never experienced anything like it before or since.

Not really interested in discussing things with fascists, but I’ve rarely seen anyone here who’s to the right of, like, a milquetoast social democrat.

I don’t think there is one, unfortunately. I agree that lack of ideological diversity is a problem with the Fediverse in general, but it’s a problem that likely won’t go away unless the Fediverse becomes mainstream.

I think other people have answered the first half of the question adequately. I’m curious as to why you particularly want it to start up again, given that it previously ‘faded away’.

The serious psychos are in and out of jail. The ones who were just kinda dicks sometimes (which to be honest probably includes me) are basically okay. And why shouldn’t we be? Being a dick when you’re still learning to be a person shouldn’t carry a life sentence of any kind.