MULTIPLE CHOICE
1. Who was Simon Peter's brother?
A. James
B. Andrew
C. John
D. Simple Simon
2. For the miracle at the wedding in Cana, how many stone jars did Jesus tell the servants to fill with water?
A. five
B. six
C. seven
D. seven times seventy-seven
3. Sick people waited at the Pool of Bethesda for the angel to:
A. cure them
B. dry up the water
C. Touch the water
D. perform show tunes
4. When Jesus told the weeping people that Jairus' daughter was not dead, they:
A. laughed at him
B. continued crying
C. went home
D. did back flips
5. How many times did Jesus say we should forgive others?
A. seven
B. never, if they are unrepentant
C. always
D. only if they are sorry
6. Jesus said that when we pray we must:
A. ask twice
B. ask for things only once
C. never give up
D. pretend to be using a phone
7. Lazarus died in what town?
A. Jerusalem
B. Nazareth
C. Bethany
D. Funky town
8. After His resurrection, how many disciples did Jesus talk to on the road to Emmaus?
A. Two
B. Five
C. Twelve
D. All of them
9. Whom did the apostles choose to replace Judas?
A. Jude
B. Joseph
C. Mathias
D. Alf
10. When the blind man told the leaders that Jesus had cured him, they:
A. believed him
B. said Jesus was not from God
C. wanted to know more
D. blinded him
Friday, April 10, 2015
Thursday, April 9, 2015
The Virginia Colonists Practiced Cannibalism
During the harsh winter of 1609-1610, British subjects in the famous colony of Jamestown, Virginia, ate their dead and their shit. This fact doesn't make it into very many US history textbooks, and the state's official Website apparently forgot to mention it in their history section.
When you think about it rationally, this fact should be a part of mainstream history. After all it demonstrates the strong will to survive among the colonists. It shows the mind-boggling hardships they endured and overcame. Yet the taboo against eating these two items is so overpowering that this episode can't be mentioned in conventional history.
Luckily, an unconventional historian, Howard Zinn, revealed this fact in his classic A People's History of the United States. Food was so nonexistent during that winter, only 60 out of 500 colonists survived. A government document from that time gives the gruesome details:
Driven thru insufferable hunger to eat those things which nature most abhorred, the flesh and excrements of man as well of our nation as of an Indian, digged by some out of his grave after he had lain buried three days and wholly devoured him; others, envying the better state of the body of any whom hunger has not yet so much wasted as their own, lay wait and threatened to kill and eat them; one among slew his wife as she slept in his bosom, cut her in pieces, salted her and fed upon her till he had clean devoured all parts saving her head.
When you think about it rationally, this fact should be a part of mainstream history. After all it demonstrates the strong will to survive among the colonists. It shows the mind-boggling hardships they endured and overcame. Yet the taboo against eating these two items is so overpowering that this episode can't be mentioned in conventional history.
Luckily, an unconventional historian, Howard Zinn, revealed this fact in his classic A People's History of the United States. Food was so nonexistent during that winter, only 60 out of 500 colonists survived. A government document from that time gives the gruesome details:
Driven thru insufferable hunger to eat those things which nature most abhorred, the flesh and excrements of man as well of our nation as of an Indian, digged by some out of his grave after he had lain buried three days and wholly devoured him; others, envying the better state of the body of any whom hunger has not yet so much wasted as their own, lay wait and threatened to kill and eat them; one among slew his wife as she slept in his bosom, cut her in pieces, salted her and fed upon her till he had clean devoured all parts saving her head.
Around One Quarter Of "Witches" Were Men
The word "witch" has become synonymous with "woman accused of working magic," and the consensus tells us that the witch trials in Europe and Colonial America were simply a war against women (ie, "genocide"). Most popular works on the subject ignore the men who were accused and executed for supposedly practicing witchcraft. Academic works that don't omit male witches usually explain them away, as if they were just a few special cases that don't really count.
Into this gap step Andrew Gow, an associate professor of history at the University of Alberta, and one of his grad students, Lara Apps. Their book Male Witches in Early Modern Europe scours the literature and finds that, of the 110,000 people tried for witchcraft and the 60,000 executed from 1450 to 1750, somewhere between 20 to 25 percent were men.
This is an average across Europe, the British Isles, and the American Colonies; the gender ratios vary widely from place to place. The lowest percentages of males were persecuted in the Basel region of Switzerland (5 percent) and in Hungary (10 percent). Places that hovered around the 50/50 mark were Finland (49 percent) and Burgundy (52 percent). Men were clear majority of "witches" in Estonia (60 percent) and Norway (73 percent). During Iceland's witch craze, from 1625 to 1685, an amazing 110 out of 120 "witches" were men, for a percentage of 92. As for America, almost a third of those executed during the infamous Salem witch trials (six out of nineteen) were men.
Besides bringing these numbers to light, professor Gow and pupil Apps present serious challenges to the attempts to erase male witches from the picture. For example, some writers claim that the men were caught up in the hysteria solely because they were related to accused women. In this scenario, the men were only "secondary targets" ("collateral damage," perhaps?). But in numerous instances men were persecuted by themselves. In other cases, a woman became a secondary target after her husband had been singled out as a witch.
Although women were the overall majority of victims, the "burning times" were pretty rough for men, too.
Into this gap step Andrew Gow, an associate professor of history at the University of Alberta, and one of his grad students, Lara Apps. Their book Male Witches in Early Modern Europe scours the literature and finds that, of the 110,000 people tried for witchcraft and the 60,000 executed from 1450 to 1750, somewhere between 20 to 25 percent were men.
This is an average across Europe, the British Isles, and the American Colonies; the gender ratios vary widely from place to place. The lowest percentages of males were persecuted in the Basel region of Switzerland (5 percent) and in Hungary (10 percent). Places that hovered around the 50/50 mark were Finland (49 percent) and Burgundy (52 percent). Men were clear majority of "witches" in Estonia (60 percent) and Norway (73 percent). During Iceland's witch craze, from 1625 to 1685, an amazing 110 out of 120 "witches" were men, for a percentage of 92. As for America, almost a third of those executed during the infamous Salem witch trials (six out of nineteen) were men.
Besides bringing these numbers to light, professor Gow and pupil Apps present serious challenges to the attempts to erase male witches from the picture. For example, some writers claim that the men were caught up in the hysteria solely because they were related to accused women. In this scenario, the men were only "secondary targets" ("collateral damage," perhaps?). But in numerous instances men were persecuted by themselves. In other cases, a woman became a secondary target after her husband had been singled out as a witch.
Although women were the overall majority of victims, the "burning times" were pretty rough for men, too.
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
When Was Lipstick Invented And What Was It's Original Purpose?
Lipstick has been in existence for thousands of years, first appearing near Babylon in the city of Ur in 3000 BC. In ancient Egypt, Cleopatra wore lipstick made from crushed red beetles, while the women of ancient Greece also painted their lips. There are numerous accounts of it being manufactured in ancient times from dyes extracted from certain plants.
Elizabeth I was the main instigator of lipstick in England during the Middle Ages, after which it didn't become prevalent again until after the French Revolution. The wearing of lipstick was previously thought to be uncouth, and any woman using it was considered a fake attempting to capture her lost youth. In fact, in 1770 a law was proposed to the British Parliament that any marriage could be annulled where it could be shown that the woman had used cosmetics prior to the wedding day. If she lured a man into matrimony through her use of cosmetics, she could be tried for witchcraft.
In modern times, lipstick is commonplace and is currently made from oils, fats, pigments and waxes, while moisturizers and sunscreen are also found as ingredients.
Elizabeth I was the main instigator of lipstick in England during the Middle Ages, after which it didn't become prevalent again until after the French Revolution. The wearing of lipstick was previously thought to be uncouth, and any woman using it was considered a fake attempting to capture her lost youth. In fact, in 1770 a law was proposed to the British Parliament that any marriage could be annulled where it could be shown that the woman had used cosmetics prior to the wedding day. If she lured a man into matrimony through her use of cosmetics, she could be tried for witchcraft.
In modern times, lipstick is commonplace and is currently made from oils, fats, pigments and waxes, while moisturizers and sunscreen are also found as ingredients.
Is Using A Tanning Bed Bad For Your Skin?
Many people use tanning beds (also known as sun beds or solariums) to attain a tan all year round. They operate by producing ultraviolet radiation, which darkens a pigment in the skin called melanin to provide a tan. Sun beds produce mainly UV-A rays, along with some UV-B rays. For years scientists thought that UV-A radiation didn't damage the skin, but it's now known that these rays are harmful and result in long-term damage, penetrating the deep layers of the skin to destroy the collagen and elastin fibers, which causes the skin to age more rapidly and results in wrinkles and freckles on the skin. The rays can also bring about an increased risk of contracting skin cancer.
While the UV-A undoubtedly provide a tan, they don't stimulate skin cells to produce a thicker epidermis, unlike UV-B rays from the sun, which means that the tan from UV-A rays doesn't provide any extra protection from further exposure to ultraviolet radiation. In fact, by prematurely aging the skin, UV-A rays damage the regenerative cells in the skin, causing it to be more susceptible to the harmful UV-B rays when the skin is later exposed to the sun.
It has recently been suggested that using tanning beds might be addictive, in that the rays they use increase the production rate of endorphins in the brain, providing the user with a pleasurable sensation.
Because sun beds have been in use for only a few years, the extent of the damage they cause is not yet fully known. However, skin specialists claim that no tan is healthy and that sun beds should be avoided, especially by people with fair complexions.
While the UV-A undoubtedly provide a tan, they don't stimulate skin cells to produce a thicker epidermis, unlike UV-B rays from the sun, which means that the tan from UV-A rays doesn't provide any extra protection from further exposure to ultraviolet radiation. In fact, by prematurely aging the skin, UV-A rays damage the regenerative cells in the skin, causing it to be more susceptible to the harmful UV-B rays when the skin is later exposed to the sun.
It has recently been suggested that using tanning beds might be addictive, in that the rays they use increase the production rate of endorphins in the brain, providing the user with a pleasurable sensation.
Because sun beds have been in use for only a few years, the extent of the damage they cause is not yet fully known. However, skin specialists claim that no tan is healthy and that sun beds should be avoided, especially by people with fair complexions.
Tuesday, April 7, 2015
How Do People Count Cards In Casinos?
Card counting is a practice that has been occurring in casinos since the 1960s, when books were first published on the topic. Some people, particularly teams of mathematically minded MIT students, made millions by using card counting techniques. The practice of card counting involves the player counting cards to gain an advantage over the casino, enabling them to beat the odds and increase their winnings. Many people think that card counting involves memorizing every card that is played so that the next card to be played is definitively known, but this is inaccurate; card counting is actually the process of remembering how many high-numbered cards have been played in relation to low-numbered cards, which gives the player an indication of the type of cards that are left in the deck.
There have been more than a hundred card-counting techniques, although complex systems of card counting are prone to human error. The most common and successful simple method used is the "Hi-Lo Count." In this system, only one number needs to be remembered at any time. "Plus one" is assigned to cards two, three, four, five and six and "minus one" is assigned to cards ten, jack, queen, king and ace. "Zero" is assigned to seven, eight and nine, which are known as neutral cards. The player counts the cards as they are played by adding or subtracting one for each card, depending on it's assigned value. A overall positive value means that there is likely to be a greater proportion of high cards in the deck. This gives the player an advantage in blackjack, for instance---a game in which counting systems are most commonly used---because the dealer is more likely to receive a high card and go bust above twenty-one (the dealer being required by the rules not to sit below seventeen). When the decks are reshuffled, the count begins again from zero.
Card counting does not help a player to win more hands; it simply means that he or she alter the size of his or her bet, depending on the count. If the count is low (i.e., below zero), the player will bet low. If the count is high (generally plus two or more), the player will bet high. In the long run, this should result in the player winning more money than he or she loses.
While card counting isn't illegal, unless a hidden mechanical device is used, the casino environment makes counting more difficult. The number of decks used per shuffle has increased, the casinos are noisy and full of distractions, and surveillance systems monitor notorious card counters, who, once spotted, are then removed or refused entry to casinos.
There have been more than a hundred card-counting techniques, although complex systems of card counting are prone to human error. The most common and successful simple method used is the "Hi-Lo Count." In this system, only one number needs to be remembered at any time. "Plus one" is assigned to cards two, three, four, five and six and "minus one" is assigned to cards ten, jack, queen, king and ace. "Zero" is assigned to seven, eight and nine, which are known as neutral cards. The player counts the cards as they are played by adding or subtracting one for each card, depending on it's assigned value. A overall positive value means that there is likely to be a greater proportion of high cards in the deck. This gives the player an advantage in blackjack, for instance---a game in which counting systems are most commonly used---because the dealer is more likely to receive a high card and go bust above twenty-one (the dealer being required by the rules not to sit below seventeen). When the decks are reshuffled, the count begins again from zero.
Card counting does not help a player to win more hands; it simply means that he or she alter the size of his or her bet, depending on the count. If the count is low (i.e., below zero), the player will bet low. If the count is high (generally plus two or more), the player will bet high. In the long run, this should result in the player winning more money than he or she loses.
While card counting isn't illegal, unless a hidden mechanical device is used, the casino environment makes counting more difficult. The number of decks used per shuffle has increased, the casinos are noisy and full of distractions, and surveillance systems monitor notorious card counters, who, once spotted, are then removed or refused entry to casinos.
Who Wrote The BIBLE, And When?
The question of who wrote the Bible and when has been debated by scholars for centuries. Most people agree that the current version of the Bible is based on older written sources that have been lost. It is also generally accepted that the Bible is an accurate, factual account of events written in the time that they took place.
A common view is that the Old Testament was written at various times between approximately 1500 BC and 500 BC. The different books are likely to have been written by the different people to whom they are attributed, such as Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel. Some books of unknown origin, such as Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus, are thought to have been written by Moses or Ezra the scribe, who studied official records and made books from them. It is thought that the New Testament was written between about AD 50 and AD 100. As with the Old Testament, many believe that the different books and chapters of the New Testament were written by those to whom they are attributed, such as Mark, Mathew, John, Luke and Paul, men who are said to have been contemporaries of Jesus.
The men who wrote the Bible came from many walks of life. Peter and John, for instance, were fishermen, while David was the king of Israel and Mathew was a tax collector.
In total, it is thought that over forty people contributed to the writing of the Bible over a period of about 1,500 years.
A common view is that the Old Testament was written at various times between approximately 1500 BC and 500 BC. The different books are likely to have been written by the different people to whom they are attributed, such as Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel. Some books of unknown origin, such as Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus, are thought to have been written by Moses or Ezra the scribe, who studied official records and made books from them. It is thought that the New Testament was written between about AD 50 and AD 100. As with the Old Testament, many believe that the different books and chapters of the New Testament were written by those to whom they are attributed, such as Mark, Mathew, John, Luke and Paul, men who are said to have been contemporaries of Jesus.
The men who wrote the Bible came from many walks of life. Peter and John, for instance, were fishermen, while David was the king of Israel and Mathew was a tax collector.
In total, it is thought that over forty people contributed to the writing of the Bible over a period of about 1,500 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)