Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 August 19

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 19

Hero

wat is the diffrence between the byronic hero and the tragic her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.234.175 (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Do the articles Byronic hero and Tragic hero help? --Jayron32 01:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

maybe the former have a better sense of byrony? --Ludwigs2 03:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't be byridiculous. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And let's not forget the Byronic Man. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

John Jacob Niles

I fear this question doesn't belong on the Reference desks at all but I'll ask it anyway. I'm wondering why the words in a fictitious song would tell the story they tell. In the story the song tells, a woman is about to be hanged. She asks the hangman to wait a moment, because she sees her father coming. She asks her father if he has the gold that if given to the hangman will set her free. Her father says no, he has not brought that gold. The same story is told again, this time with her mother's arrival. Her mother also fails to bring any gold. In the third such instance, it is her lover arriving, who brings the required gold. The story thus has a happy ending, for the woman in danger of being hanged. I realize it is just a story. I still find it odd. It seems to convey a message that fits into no category of messages that I know of. Do mothers and fathers not want to see their daughters live? Is it that all want to see someone live, but a lover more so than parents? It is certainly chilling to hear the mother and father say that they have come to see her hanging. Why this particular art form? It may be good art, and it may derive its impact from its stark emotions. I am trying to interpret it, and it occurs to me that it may be good because it defies interpretation. Instead it seems to insist on being accepted for what it is, despite a lack of underlying logic. By the way, I like the song a lot. It stirs up emotions and it is very thought provoking and the delivery is incomparable by John Jacob Niles. I was just wondering if anyone has an interpretation that more or less falls into place without troubling them too much. This is the song. Bus stop (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Depends on the age and culture-of-origin of the song, but I'd read it as a (not unrealistic) comment on the place of women in a society. In many traditional societies, parents having to chose between a daughter's life and their family honor would choose honor; a lover would (ideally) not be so conservative on the matter. There are plenty of cultures even today where things like that happen. --Ludwigs2 03:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

One thought just crossed my mind. Clearly the "hangman's fee" is bribery. The passion at the heart of the song may be the evil of bribery. The parents may represent continuity more so than the lover, who may represent a break with the past. Yes, the lover pays the "fee." But at the same time the totality of the story may serve to highlight the extreme injustice of bribery in such a life and death situation. It a little bit brings to mind the song Strange Fruit, what with the presence of injustice in the extreme. I find this interpretation interesting because if bribery and injustice is at all an important subject in this song, it is only touched on tangentially — barely hinted at. Bus stop (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't name the song, but I guess it's The Maid Freed from the Gallows, best known as the Led Zeppelin song "Gallows Pole". It seems that in the early versions the hangman is in fact a pirate, so the evils of bribery would pale beside the evil of him being a pirate, and the point of the song seems to be that her parents and various other relatives don't in fact value her as much as they value a bunch of treasure that they've got, which I suppose could be extrapolated to the message that a lover probably cares about you more than your relatives do. Maybe some idealization of true love is going on there, alongside teenage* rebellion. Perhaps She's Leaving Home has a vaguely similar message. *Yes I know teenagers weren't invented until the 1950s, but even so. 81.131.50.245 (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the "a lover probably cares about you more than your relatives do" message does seem inescapable. Thanks for identifying the song.

Ludwigs' interpretation is also provided with support at the article on the song, where it says, "It has been suggested that the reference to "gold" may not mean actual gold for a bribe, but may instead stand for the symbolic restoration of the maid's honor..." Bus stop (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Nazi Ovens

I can't find much on this topic, any help? --Baysean (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The Holocaust would be a good place to start researching. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Would that be for baking bread, or for some other particular topic? Bus stop (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I jumped to a conclusion. The OP might be asking about how Berliners are made. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There is some information about the incinerators used in the death camps in this essay, which may be of use to you Karenjc 12:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You will find lots of information if you Google the terms "Nazi crematorium". Marco polo (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely somebody baked some Strudel in an oven that was ideal for that purpose. This image might give a clue. Bus stop (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are interested in ovens used for baking food products, Germans during the Nazi period used exactly the same ovens as were used before the Nazi period and as were used in other countries during that period. See Oven. Marco polo (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In the movie Torn Curtain they found that even modern ovens can get the job done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we use a little tasteful restraint on the "ha ha, genocide" jokes? At least until the "serious" thread has played itself out? --Mr.98 (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I Agree Mr.98 Baysean (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Mostly it seems white people were killed during the holocaust, what about black people, etc? Baysean (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How does this question relate to ovens? Or is this a related but slightly different topic? Bus stop (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not want to start a new thread then it would be too confusing. sorry Baysean (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on thread. Bus stop (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

We also have an article on taking the piss 95.141.32.148 (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Bus stop thats not what i ment. I mean i didnt want to ask a new question on blacks being killed in nazi germany or others etc. Baysean (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

See our article on Black people in Nazi Germany and "Blacks during the Holocaust" at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. One famous autobiographical account of a black boy growing up in Nazi Germany is Destined to Witness by Hans Massaquoi who later became managing editor of Ebony magazine. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Milton Wright (academic) was an African American academic who had a long meeting with Hitler in 1932, and wrote about it in Ebony and elsewhere.John Z (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"Evidences for biblical accuracy" questions

Hello Wikipedians! I was studying with a pastor yesterday over the question of biblical accuracy. He brought up several examples from the Old Testament purportedly containing knowledge too advanced to be known at the time, and thus perhaps divinely inspired. They were as follows:

• Isaiah 40:22: "He [God] sits enthroned above the circle of the earth." The minister contended that knowledge of a round earth would be quite improbable at the time of Isaiah. I remarked that there's nothing too earth-shattering about the notion that the earth is a circle, albeit a flat circle. You could come up with that from standing on the mountaintop. We looked up the Hebrew word for "circle" used in this verse, according to Strong's, and it came out as "circle, circuit, compass". I didn't find this argument to be terribly convincing. Any thoughts?
• Job 26:7: "He [God] spreads out the northern skies over empty space, he suspends the earth over nothing." I've heard this one before, and it does sound like a far more accurate assessment than what could be available at the time. Anyone know how this should be read? What were the Sumerian ideas of the structure of the Earth?
• Deuteronomy 23:12—14: "Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relive yourself. As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement. For the LORD your God moves about in your camp to protect you and to deliver your enemies to you. Your camp must be holy, so that he will not see among you anything indecent and turn away from you." Is this a divine knowledge of infectious diseases? It is said that those who did not suffer from Europe's medieval plagues were Jews who kept the laws (haven't fact-checked this). Could you argue that this passage reflects a simple religious rite instead, based on the verse that God must not see anything indecent?
• Leviticus 13:45—46: "The person with such an infectious disease must wear torn clothes, let his hair be unkempt, cover the lower part of his face and cry out, 'Unclean! Unclean!' As long as he has the infection he remains unclean. He must live alone; he must live outside the camp." This related to the prior point. First known instance of quarantine?
• Genesis 17:12: "For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring." I have read that eight days old is the first day a circumcision could be safely performed due to the infant's ability to form blood clots. To my minister, this showed remarkable divine knowledge. I commented that maybe you could figure that out through trial and error. But, of course, if we are to believe the account, there was no trial and error—just an initial command to Abraham.
• Finally, construction of Noah's ark. I have heard that the dimensions of the ark are in a perfect seaworthy ratio used today to design "virtually unsinkable" ships. Is this true? In addition, God commands Noah to coat his ark with pitch inside and out. My minister stated that until recent times pitch-coating was generally done on either one side or the other, and not until recently was it discovered that coating on both sides creates an air pocket that helps the ship's buoyancy. Is this true?

Thank you all for any help. Sorry this is pretty lengthy, but I just wanted to do some fact-check of these purported evidences. WordyGirl90 13:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't help with all of these, but I'm not sure why everyone thinks ancient people were dumb and thought the earth was flat. But even if they didn't know it was a sphere, it was certainly easy to see that it was at least a circular disc - the sun and the moon are also circular, and the Earth leaves a curved shadow on the moon during an eclipse (one Greek scientist reasoned that the Earth must be spherical because the shadow was always curved). As for diseases, well they didn't know about germs or viruses or bacteria specifically, but it's not hard to figure out that you'll get sick if you hang around human excrement. (To use another Greek example, they thought it had something to do with the odour in the air.) The medieval Jews did suffer from the plague, but they were already almost totally isolated in ghettos when they lived in medieval cities, so it wasn't witchcraft or special attention to religious law, they just tended not to be in contact with plague-infected non-Jews. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• It is of course possible that these apparent references to advanced knowledge were divinely inspired. As I'm sure your pastor knows, the Existence of God is notoriously difficult to prove or disprove. But there are three more mundane explanations for all the passages that you cite:
  • 1. Anachronism. For example, if you go to the first paragraph of Wikipedia's article on the Book of Isaiah, you'll see that while the book is attributed to Isaiah, who lived in the 700s BC, there are lots of reasons to believe that at least the final version of the Book was written much later, maybe even as late as the 300s BC. So any earthly knowledge learned over that period (like astronomy, navigation, or how to perform a circumcision) could have been added to the text. Many Christian and Jewish denominations officially accept those later edits as divinely permitted.
  • 2. Modern eyes over-interpreting. For instance, just because the Ancient Hebrews were a famously clean people does not mean that they understood microbes or medicine. It could just mean that they noticed that washing yourself does wonders to improve health, which is often cited as why ritual purification shows up in many ancient religions the world over.
  • 3. The ancients are smarter than you might have thought. Heliocentrism dates to the 300s BC, and knowledge of a Spherical Earth is much older, having been traced back to at least the 500s BC, and possibly long before that. The Sea Peoples were building huge, seaworthy ships hundreds of years before Moses wrote the first version of the Torah.

Hope this helps! --M@rēino 14:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Great point about other religions having ritual purification - thanks! I think it's a common myth that a spherical earth is a brand-new concept...my pastor even started to say something about how "folks in Columbus' time thought the earth was flat", which isn't true. WordyGirl90 15:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Most nonsectarian scholars believe that no part of the Hebrew Bible was written before about 800 B.C., and many parts were not written down until 400 B.C. or later, though the first written sections may have incorporated accounts passed down orally for some generations. However, the evidence suggests that the ancient oral texts were heavily revised in the 800 B.C.-400 B.C. period and would have incorporated the knowledge of that time, which included the circular (or even spherical) shape of Earth. As for infectious disease and the earliest age for circumcision, I think that those concepts were deducible through trial and error and may have been part of folk wisdom. People had, after all, been around for many thousands of years at this time and would have been able to learn that those who spent time near excrement or sick people tended to get sick and that bleeding could be dangerous if circumcision was attempted on babies younger than 8 days old. By the way, none of this refutes the idea, if one believes in God, that the original insights that led to this knowledge were divinely inspired. Marco polo (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not really the case. It might be plausible to contend that no Biblical book was assembled in quasi-complete form before 800 B.C.; but several books incorporate, or were influenced by, documents which seem to have been written earlier, and a few passages (such as the Song of Miriam and the Song of Deborah) even preserve oral traditions of poems from the pre-monarchy period... AnonMoos (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really understand your question. It doesn't take a whole lot of medical training to know that it's better to bury excrement in a hole outside of camp than (as I assume is the opposite) leave it standing in a pile in the middle of camp. nor do any of the rest of those points require divine inspiration. There is, however, a utility in presenting these issues as "God's rules" in non-literate tribal societies - useful social conventions are much more likely to be obeyed and passed down on a 'God says so' basis than on a 'Your beloved leader Jubalcude says so' basis. You might ask your pastor why it is important him/her that these things be seen as divinely obtained as opposed to evidence of human insight; to my mind God has more important messages for the modern world than dictates about toilet training. --Ludwigs2 15:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I tended to also side on possible naturalistic explanations, but I'm afraid if I bring that up again I'll be backed into a corner looking like the overly skeptical who is denying what's put in front of me. My Christian friend who is majoring in philosophy might try to paint me as a over-skeptical David Hume again :P . You all are kind of echoing my thoughts I had during the Bible study...all of these "proofs" don't really throw much weight on one interpretation or another. More thoughts are welcome! WordyGirl90 15:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You missed my main point: learn the Socratic method! The only way to deal with rhetoric is to make the rhetorician reflect on the purposes of the claim (because all rhetorical claims have a social purpose above and beyond the analytical statement). In this case, it's clear that the pastor wants to convince people of the power and goodness of the bible; however, it's doubtful that these particular claims actually do that, at least not in the simplified way that the pastor suggests. A handful of well-considered questions can make it obvious that the rhetorical device used is not serving the intended purpose without actually calling that intended purpose into question, which is what you want - separate the deeply ingrained spiritual desire from the fairly superficial rhetorical claim and it becomes much easier to dispose of the latter. spend some time reading a few of the Socratic dialogs to see the way he works it. --Ludwigs2 17:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Whether or not I have the guts is the question. WordyGirl90 20:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• "I have read that eight days old is the first day a circumcision could be safely performed due to the infant's ability to form blood clots."

Do you have any citations for this? It doesn't sound right to me, and after googling, the only stuff I found mentions infants being just as able to get blood clots as anyone else. Ref. Science Daily - Research Urgently Needed To Treat Blood Clots In Children, "The condition, which exists in children ranging from premature infants to the late teens..."

And I am not sure how circumcision practices have changed over the years, but nowadays they are often done within the first 48 hours after birth. Ref. Kid's Health - circumcision, "Routine circumcision is usually performed during the first 10 days (often within the first 48 hours), either in the hospital or, for some religious ritual circumcisions, at home."

The rest I have no idea about one way or the other, so I won't comment on them. :) ^Avic_ennasis @ 16:49, 9 Elul 5770 / 19 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/723184 claims scientific information on why the eighth day is best. Also claims that infants are injected with vitamins in order to make up for it. Have not scouted out the source myself...WordyGirl90

The Noah's Ark article brings up a lot of questions about the animals; there's nothing there about the size and shape of the boat though. Also, for circumcisions, if they are done in the hospital it would probably be pretty soon after birth, because if there is nothing wrong with the baby everyone is sent home almost right away. We were in the hospital less than 24 hours when my son was born. They also poked him to take a tiny blood sample, and he clotted up just fine. And of course they cut the umbilical cord, which bleeds and clots as normal. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

People of faith often find these (and/or similar) arguments comforting, but if they were definitively provable, a) there'd be few intelligent disbelievers and b) we would no longer refer to "faith" or "belief". --Dweller (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

On the face of it, it's hard not to see these as grasping at straws. Each of these "divine" insights are either based on very questionable interpretation of the literal nature of the text, or are actually commonsensical notions (like don't hang out with sick people if you don't want to be sick) that were well within the capabilities of observant people back then. The "hanging from nothing" does not exactly sound like a physical description to me. As a means of convincing a skeptic, these examples all fall very, very flat. Presumably even your philosophy major friends will admit this and that "bigger guns" are going to be necessary. In any case, there is no sin in being skeptical — or at least, there shouldn't be! Your philosophy major friend should have the guts to face up to the fact that true, intellectually honest religious belief (or practice) is not an easy thing. It's an important lesson and he will not be much of a philosopher if he can't face that head on. To admit such a thing is not incompatible with being a believer in the slightest — indeed, I think it is a lot more reflective of honest belief when you aren't grasping around for very tiny, weak arguments in your favor. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The Bible is not a science textbook."... the things of the spirit of God... are examined spiritually (1 Corinthians 2:14);" Remember Jesus' words at Matthew 16:23: "'Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me, because you think, not God’s thoughts, but those of men.'” Here, the personage Satan is being used by Jesus figuratively (as he often did) to highlight a common mistake of Spiritual Men who all too often try to use the knowledge of men to overcome their spiritual problems. Pray that "YOUR faith might be, not in men’s wisdom, but in God’s power. (1 Corinthians 2:5). schyler (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes...the question of the Bible not being a science text is pretty well settled. But should it be a 100% true spiritual guide? That is the question. Some of the more repulsive realities, such as the Canaanite genocide, are explained in church as "necessary back then because God needed to preserve His people...this was before the era of Jesus and when God 'changed the rules' a bit." Then, of course, they recoil at Islamic jihad as just plain horrible. I ask them to explain these discrepancies and I can't get an explanation. I understand that a God would almost by definition do things that don't make sense to us...but why am I supposed to pick this God in the first place? WordyGirl90 20:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The Old Testament God is not a modern man (or woman) in the slightest. Murder and death and ridiculous, out of proportionate punishment was the name of the game. Resolution over this fact for modern Christians (those who do not believe in stoning people) is to appeal to the New Testament, which has a lot less of God exhorting his chosen folk to massacre people. But there are many believers (e.g. Orthodox Jews) who accept the very tribal, angry God as is written. As for whether the Bible should be a true spiritual guide — you're getting into heady theological territory. I sympathize with those hard-liners who say that once you start interpreting the Bible to fit the values you'd like it to have, you've probably missed the point of religion, but I'm not a believer myself. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether you live in the bible belt or the borscht belt, you've got to take things with a grain of salt. Bus stop (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It is of utmost importance to realize that Islam is an Abrahamic religion, like Judaism and Christianity are. It is equally important to take into account how true worship can be compromised over time by paganism, false prophets, and apathy. Joshua chapter 8 details the account of the conquering of Ai... It is a very graphic account ("And all those who fell on that day...amounted to twelve thousand (verse 25)"). However violent and un-god-like this may seem, The Canaanites were even more un-god-like. The land of Canaan practiced many detestable things to Jehovah, including, but not limited to, infanticide, idol worship, polygamy, fornication, homosexuality, and that which is most spoken of in The Bible, Baal worship (see 1 Kings 18:25-46 for an interesting account). It is no more different from God clearing the Earth of the depravity caused by the nephilim during The Great Flood. YHWH is the true god because X...... I cannot give you empirical evidence as to why. It makes me feel good and gives me a purpose, and I never want to go on again wondering; I therefore choose to know for certain (and as you read The Word you will start to see the world as God sees it). That account in 1 kings I cited earlier really is interesting. And, like I said, it is very important to realize how true worship can be corroded over time; one should always examine their beliefs, which you are doing, which is good. One note which is off topic but rather interesting: the connection between the already-mentioned nephilim and Hercules (half-god-half-man, very strong, etc.). schyler (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• It is no more different from God clearing the Earth of the depravity caused by the nephilim during The Great Flood. What did it accomplish? Sin still flourished.
• However violent and un-god-like this may seem, The Canaanites were even more un-god-like. Did you just espouse moral relativism? "Lesser of two evils"? Isn't God supposed to be perfect?
• I cannot give you empirical evidence as to why. It makes me feel good and gives me a purpose, and I never want to go on again wondering... Umm, then how is this different from me rejecting your religion because it makes me "feel" better? WordyGirl90 16:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, but there is a lot of excessiveness in the Old Testament, at least by modern standards of justice. I mean, turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt because she happened to glance backwards. That's kind of harsh by any standard. (OK, she disobeyed an angel's command. But a pillar of salt? Rough. Both for her and for Lot.) There are plenty of other examples. You either have to conclude, "well, I guess those people or acts were a million times worse back then than they appear" (which seems to be your answer — though I presume you would not have people slaughtered today because of their fornication, homosexuality, idol worship, Baal worship, etc.) — or you say, "well, God's kind of harsh, but I guess he knew what he was doing." Either one is kind of unsatisfying, you have to admit. (You can also take the hard-liner approach, and say, "well, modern standards of justice must be wrong." But fortunately that is a minority position.) None of which, obviously, disproves God or the Bible or says it is a bad idea. But we can be frank that on a first pass a lot of the sentiments in there are not exactly ones which we really uphold today. There is a reason, for example, that no Western nation's laws resemble in any real way the Ten Commandments with any specificity (you can't murder and you can't steal, that's about it). --Mr.98 (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) The problem with all these claims of how bad the Israelites' enemies were, is that they all come from the Israelites, who (a) won and (b) were not dispassionate and unbiased recorders: one wonders how the other sides of the stories might have sounded. According to the archaological and related studies I've read, the practices of idol worship and polygamy were not unknown amongst the early Israelites and their forerunners (infanticide I'm not sure about); fornication and homosexuality have undoubtably featured in all human cultures, and Ba'al, which merely means 'Lord' in the related Semitic languages, was a title originally applied to El/Yahweh ('Jehovah' is a false neologism resulting from the combination of the consonants of Yahweh with the vowels of Adonai) as well as to other neighborhood gods, which became the casualty of early interfactional schisms in which the Jerusalem-based priesthood won out against those of the other early Israelite temples. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You say, 87.81.230.195, that the Israelites "were not dispassionate and unbiased recorders". However, the Bible has many examples of their faults and deeds, evidently recorded under divine inspiration. The rebellion by Adam and Eve, the slaughter of Abel by Cain, the jealousy toward Joseph by his brothers, the adultery by David toward Bath-sheba and his murder of Uriah, the case of Jonah fleeing his assignment, the quarrels among the apostles of Jesus as to who was "greatest" among them, and the attempt by John to worship an angel (in Revelation) are recorded. The apostle Paul wrote that worshippers of God in later times could benefit by heeding the bad examples of their forefathers in earlier times. (http://www.multilingualbible.com/1_corinthians/10-11.htm) -- Wavelength (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would assess Adam & Eve and Cain & Abel to be folk-myth figures who even in the context of the myth long predate the existence of 'Israelites' in any meaningful sense, and as such their 'misdeeds' reinforce the message of the Torah rather than detract from it. Similarly, Jesus and John (and the Apostles) were long post-Israelite Judaeans or Jews, recorded in accounts much more recent and entirely different in nature from the Torah: the modern Bible is a post-hoc assemblage of disparate materials, and taking it to be a unified, divinely-inspired record requires circular reasoning only possible to an already convinced believer - I'm afraid your "evidently recorded under divine inspiration" doesn't work for anyone who doesn't fall into that category.

David and Jonah do fall into the broadly interpretable 'Israelite' era, and indeed some of their supposed misdeeds (though not necessarily historical) are reported for didactic effect, but I wasn't claiming that the Torah paints a uniformly glowing picture of its 'own side'. My point (which to be sure is a sidetrack to the original issue) is that in the absence of any concept of historical detachment in its composition, the Israelites' practices and actions are likely to have been even worse that the Torah reports (often in apparently approving terms) and those of their enemies correspondingly less bad. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

True there is the possible perception of 'excessiveness,' but none of your conclusions are true. My standpoint is taken from His Word: "The Rock, perfect is his activity, For all his ways are justice (Deuteronomy 32:4)," "'the thoughts of YOU people are not my thoughts, nor are my ways YOUR ways,' is the utterance of Jehovah. (Isaiah 55:8)." I mentioned examining beliefs, but questioning the activities of The Creator of The Universe is only arrogant.
@87.81.230.195: "According to the archaological and related studies I've read" is not reliable citation. True fornication and homosexuality have almost always existed, simply some societies see the superfluous style it stipulates. As for your assertion about The Divine Name, I'll have to look at that. In any case, it is still better than using a title like Lord or God. schyler (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Stipulating, on no objective evidence, the existence of a "Creator of the Universe" in terms which pre-emptively disqualify any argument by others about his/her/its real existence might also be seen as arrogance. It's difficult to concisely cite the results of decades of reading around a subject in what is not, after all, a Wiki article but merely a fairly ephemeral Ref Desk exchange, and some may question the validity of backing up arguments about the factuality of a disputed text merely by circularly 'citing' the text itself. As for the superiority of using a (likely human-invented) name rather than a respectful title, chacun à son goût; I'll stick to my "Lord" and "Lady", thank you :-). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC).

OK, so you've basically just said, "well, God's kind of harsh, but I guess he knew what he was doing." Or put another way, "it's not about your standards of justice, it's about God's, and if those don't make sense to you, it's your fault, not his." Which is, as I noted, a way out, but it is not very theologically or philosophically satisfying, in my opinion. It is basically an invention to not think about it seriously — it is an appeal to ending the conversation. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr.98 sums it up. While we're at it, let's explain away violent jihad as necessary to accomplishing God's goals...whoops, wrong God! I was at a college Bible study and one of my friends said the usual about how Canaan had to be "cleared out" for the Israelites to give them a religious safe haven. I turned to him and said, "But the jihadists need a safe haven too, a world of Sharia law!" He chuckled and said, "Well, they're just wrong." Facepalm. I fully understand the notion of a God doing things that may seem repugnant to the human conscience. But it all depends on what God you pick. WordyGirl90 16:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

WordyGirl90, you began this discussion by asking about "purported evidences" for divine inspiration of the Bible. Has anyone ever offered to you any "purported evidences" for divine inspiration of the Qur'an? Incidentally, what does "Facepalm" mean?—Wavelength (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not WordyGirl, but I've certainly had people offer me "purported evidences" for divine inspiration of the Qur'an, just as I've had people offer me "purported evidences" for the efficacy of Traditional Chinese Medicine and "purported evidences" for the existence of aliens controlling the government. I've had people offer me "purported evidences" that we are all reincarnated, that the EU is a Nazi plan to take over the world, that the Bible contains divinely inspired scientific truths, that the Catholic Church plans to kill all the Protestants, that fairies really exist, that evolution is an evil lie, and that Richard Dawkins is knowledgeable about theology (I think I must have a sympathetic-looking face). Forgive me if I require more than "purported evidences", or really enthusiastic people who are very sure they are right, before I upgrade an idea from "some people think this" to "this is likely to be true". Actual evidences would do the job much better. 86.161.255.213 (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

IP sums it up. In addition, our article on facepalm may shed some light on my usage of the expression. WordyGirl90 18:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the one thing that pretty much all Abrahamic religions agree on is that there is only one God. therefore, there can't be any wrong God, since the Muslim God and the Christian God and the Jewish God must (ipso fact) be the same God. It's not a question of what God you pick; it's a question of how much you're trying to fit God's image into your own preconceptions (instead of trying to remake your preconceptions in favor of God's image). Not many people can cope well with that line of thought, however. --Ludwigs2 17:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Qur'an teaches that God does not have a Son. Jesus states that He is the Son of God and that no one comes to the Father except through Him. Not exactly compatible religions... By the way, I am really enjoying this discussion, and welcome more input! WordyGirl90 18:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember it teaching that explicitly, but it's been a while since I've looked at the Qur'an so I could be mistaken. And in any case, that's more of a semantical ambiguity (what Wittgenstein referred to pejoratively as 'philosophy') than a real issue. I mean, few Christians would go so far as to say that Jesus is the biological offspring of God (since that would have all sorts of disturbing implications), but that opens the question of what exactly Christians do mean by 'Son of God'. The sure fact that there is only one God (which all Abrahamic religions espouse) trumps any sectarian differences about the relationship of one man to that God.

As with all things religious, one can choose to interpret it in narrow, parochial terms or in expansive, universal terms. The fact that historically religions have chosen to interpret these things narrowly and prejudicially does not mean that they were right to do so (particularly when doing so led them to massive efforts of violence and brutality inconsistent with others tenets of their faiths). Men are stupid and violent, and god accepts them as they are; that doesn't make god stupid and violent. --Ludwigs2 19:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The idea that God would have children/take human form/be tripartite in trinity is a (blasphemous) violation of tawhid, and the proposition that Jesus is the son of God is shirk. One could argue that there could be a wrong God in that whatever Christians, etc. are worshiping is not actually God, or does have enough in common with the Islamic God to be construed as God, but, nonetheless, Islam recognizes Christians (and Jews) as misled Muslims, who will be treated kindly by God at judgment (although obviously the theology's somewhat more complex than I've made it out to be, here). The Rhymesmith (talk) 08:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

We can all ask how much the evolutionary scientists are trying to fit their conclusions into their own preconceptions, instead of being dispassionate and unbiased recorders. For example, Piltdown Man was an evolutionary hoax.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, do you read the articles you link? Should we also consider Charles Dawson's 'Roman figurine' evidence that historians of the Romans are trying to fit their conclusions into their own preconceptions, instead of being dispassionate and unbiased recorders? Do we count it as a hoax that is part of a conspiracy among historians to pretend that the Romans created cast iron in early Britain, or do we count it as a hoax by an attention-seeking individual? Do we discount the entire discipline of history over this, or do we look at the process by which it was discarded and exposed as a hoax, hoping to ensure we catch similar things earlier?

And in any case, this has little to nothing to do with whether anything in the Bible is true. If someone rejects evolution, why on Earth would that mean they accepted the Bible? They could as easily convert to Jainism, Hinduism or even Sikhism, which doesn't particularly worry about such things. If I prove to you that bananas are not green, that does not mean my claim that they are purple is true. 86.161.255.213 (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I did read the entire article Piltdown Man, and I am aware that it by itself does not provide evidence about all evolutionary scientists. I merely said that we can all ask the indirect question which I mentioned. Likewise, I am aware that a figurine forgery does not provide evidence that all historians have promoted pseudohistory. In any case, this has very much to do with the veracity of the Bible. Only the Bible answers the question of why God has been permitting suffering.—Wavelength (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't understand why people keep bringing up Piltdown Man to paint evolutionists are conspiratorial. Guess who debunked Piltdown Man? Evolutionists, through the scientific process. I could go off on creation science, but I won't. Back to the question at hand...Wavelength, you seem to be going in circles about the Bible. I can't glean a good reason as to why I should believe the Biblical account of why God permits suffering, and not, say, Buddhist philosophy. Clue me in? WordyGirl90 22:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see http://www.why-the-bible.com/. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

A remarkable collection of cherrypicked quotes and faulty summarisations of scientific history, made in order to make a point that suits a particular POV. I guess it is a good example of the kind of sophistry that Wordygirl90 experiences when expressing "skepticism". --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. If by "quotes" you're referring to the scripture verses at the beginning...I didn't cherrypick those, my pastor did. And if by "faulty summarisations of scientific history" you mean my statement that the process of science debunked Piltdown Man...well, that's true. Could you clarify what you are accusing me of? WordyGirl90 16:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

WordyGirl90, that comment by Saddhiyama was made in response to my comment of 00:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC). Please see Help:Using talk pages#Indentation (permanent link here). -- Wavelength (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh duh, thank you. I misread it as being a slant on me. Actually, I agree with him that the site is nothing more than a compendium of quotations (perhaps true, perhaps not) of some famous folks' opinions. WordyGirl90 21:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You can read about vitamin K and prothrombin at http://www.givingbirthnaturally.com/male-circumcision.html and http://www.matavuvale.com/forum/topics/why-circumcise-on-the-8th-day. -- Wavelength (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

So, You should believe in the bible because the bible says you should. That makes sense to me. 72.2.54.34 (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No. You should believe what The Bible says because you are inspired and "draw[n] by the father (John 6:44)." All I can point out to you, Wordy Girl, is the similarities between religion the world over. Even Buddhism (which, I assume, you find very appealing (as did I)) has similarities to something so different as Catholicism (for example, Beads and Incense. So many similarites, so many differences, so much fighting; I wonder which personage finds that so fun.... Like The Bible says, "...there is... one faith (Ephesians 4:4,5)."
Do your search for the answer, and when you want to have found it, you will. Keep in mind to use one of the most beautiful creations, that is, your mind. Logic is not solely an atheistic practice. Of course the world was not created in 6 literal days; of course God would not want his creation to suffer in a fiery Hell (see this article); of course Humans are imperfect (and continue to become even more so). The question is, WordyGirl, do you want what you want, or what do you want to do God's Will? schyler (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a silly argument. Faiths the world round are similar because they fulfill similar roles in the lives of humans, and as such have structures with have evolved to near-optimal levels of functioning in that particular role. Individual cultural relics held in common reflect, in general, the synonymy of forms of life the world round (one would not expect the dolphin analogue of religion to involve beads, for example, were dolphins to have religion). I'd moreover count it demeaning to God that His will be manifest in a particular preference for beads.

Your argument makes about as much sense as saying - all languages in the world have roughly the same partitioning of vocabulary and deep structure, which must therefore reflect the will of grammar, as opposed to vocabulary and grammar near-optimally reflecting the forms of life & reasoning and neurobiology common to all humans. The Rhymesmith (talk) 09:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • Sorry, I have only noticed your questions now, WordlyGirl90. I can go through some of the most up-to-date Commentaries on these points, if it would help. On the question of a "round" earth vis-a-vis a flat one: the general feeling we get from Biblical BC is that it was flat. Later, and when?, perhaps this was questioned. The other points I could check, if that is needed now. (I would do this from a clinical (Exegesis) point-of-view). Regarding "Piltown Man", it was a practical joke from one scholar on another, that came out at the death of the last scholar. MacOfJesus (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• I find it so confusing that so many insist that the bible has to have literal truths about the material world rather than being true symbolically, and about the spiritual nature of the universe and humanity. Symbolically, your points look like this to me:
• Isaiah 40:22: "He [God] sits enthroned above the circle of the earth." Refers to a distinction between spirit and matter.
• Job 26:7: "He [God] spreads out the northern skies over empty space, he suspends the earth over nothing." Refers to the creation/evolution of matter from spirit, or from apparently nothing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
• Deuteronomy 23:12—14: "Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relive yourself..." I can't see what this has to do with religion/spirit/symbolism at all. Somebody's human rulebook slipped in?
• Leviticus 13:45—46: "The person with such an infectious disease must wear torn clothes..." Ditto?
• Genesis 17:12: "For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised..." I don't know enough about mythology to fully explain this, but I believe injury to the penis or groin is an initiatory ritual in many cultures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subincision, and similarly there are a ton of mythical symbologies to the number eight http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology_and_the_Church_Fathers.
• Construction of Noah's ark. The Noah's Ark article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_ark#Numerology_and_Tabernacle refers to the symbolic correspondence between the dimensions of the Ark and the dimensions of the Temple in Jerusalem. 70.31.58.221 (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Since each of these claims can be fully explained by the supposition that ancient astronauts guided mankind’s development, what’s the point of attributing these writings to a deity? DOR (HK) (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The usual explanation for rules about disease, and kosher food, and so on, is (as you hint) that they arise from trial and error, and the societies which do these things unquestioningly because they've randomly (through trials) decided God says so, fare better than the societies which quibble, although both fare worse than the societies which have come up with a good, plausible guess about microbes; but there weren't any of those, since that level of understanding is easier with microscopes and a concept of scientific experiments, and so in ancient times the religious memes out-compete the consciously held ideas. 81.131.0.30 (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Passports from Cameroon

I have a question about Talk:Cameroonian passports. Answer either there or here, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.61.234.225 (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What is your question? It will be answered here, if anywhere. Bielle (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming 137.61 is referring to the only post on the talk page we were linked to ("there"). Here is the question:

"Passports normally have the coat of arms of the issuing state on the front. Why is this not the case with Cameroonian passports? What is this emblem on the passport? It is not the Coat of arms of Cameroon. "

---Sluzzelin talk 15:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You'd make a good detective, Little Bear. Bielle (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think most countries us a coat of arms. I know, for example, a Swiss passport doesn't. Many other countries use simple designs, such as the Irish passport, the Japanese Passport, and the Turkish Passport. I suspect the "Coat of Arms" or similar depends on the country, and those countries with a strong history in heraldry seem more likely to use such markings. A great gallery can be found at commons:Passport. ^Avic_ennasis @ 16:25, 9 Elul 5770 / 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If you look at it, all of these you mention (Switzerland, Ireland, Japan, Turkey) use the main symbol from their respective coat of arms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.32.20 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I assumed they where not a coat of arms, but I was wrong. :) See Coat of arms of Ireland, Coat of arms of Turkey, Coat of arms of Japan, and Coat of arms of Switzerland. ^Avic_ennasis @ 11:03, 19 Elul 5770 / 29 August 2010 (UTC)

What's on the front of that passport is a (slightly altered, to include both the French and English versions of the country's name and motto) representation of the obverse of the national seal of Cameroon, described in the country's 1972 constitution as "a circular medallion in bas-relief, 46 millimetres in diameter, bearing on the obverse and in the centre the head of a girl in profile turned to the dexter towards a coffee branch with two leaves and flanked on the sinister by five cocoa pods, encircled beneath the upper edge by the French words 'Republique du Cameroun' and above the lower edge by the national motto 'Paix - Travail - Patrie'; on the reverse and in the centre the coat of arms of the Republic of Cameroon, encircled beneath the upper edge by the English words 'Republic of Cameroon' and above the lower edge by the national motto 'Peace - Work - Fatherland'". In similar fashion, the front of U.S. passports bear the obverse of the Great Seal of the United States. Deor (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, Chad has both a traditional heraldic coat of arms, and also a completely separate seal which has no similarity with coat of arms, but instead depicts a girl's head and upper body... AnonMoos (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Eugene Peterson's The Message

I have thoroughly enjoyed Eugene Peterson's version of the Bible. In his interpretation of one of the words about the birth of Christ, he uses a word that (I think) changes the meaning of the story. I would like to ask someone who would know the source of his interpretation. Can anyone help me with a contact? 63.131.201.127 (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have two suggestions:

You might try reaching Eugene H. Peterson himself through one of his publishers, a list of which appears at the bottom of his article; or,

Go to the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language and ask your question about the specific word there. Many scholars and other knowledgeable people look at those requests. Bielle (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

meaning of oshan caste in india (punjab)

Dear Team,

Please provide me the detail history of the surname OSHAN .....i think its basically origin in west side...Pls do reply this.... i have a friend but i rare hear this caste, so brief expalian with sub caste —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggauravmahajan143 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am unable to find sources in the history of this caste. They do not seem to be available online. Marco polo (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean ROSHAN? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I am from Punjab. Never heard of this caste. Are you sure it exists ? What district or pind you are in ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Roger Clemens

This sentence comes from an article (located here: [1]) about Roger Clemens being indicted for perjury before Congress: "Clemens faces a combined maximum sentence of 30 years in prison and a $1.5 million fine, although current sentencing guidelines would only put him in jail for 21 months if he is convicted." Can someone explain what that means? He faces 30 years as a maximum prison sentence ... but sentence guidelines only call for 21 months. I don't understand what that means. If the guidelines call for 21 months, how does he face 30 years? Can anyone clarify or explain this odd and seemingly contradictory wording? Thanks! (64.252.34.115 (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC))

See United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines. These differ from the actual maximum sentences permitted under the laws, which are rarely handed out. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, I guess it's all semantics, right? That is, under the guidelines, Clemens is "facing" 21 months. Even though the law allows a maximum of 30 years, Clemens is not really "facing" this 30 years ... he is only "facing" the 21 months as allowed by the guidelines. Is my paraphrasing correct? Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC))

Or, perhaps stated differently ... he is facing a theoretical punishment of 30 years, but a practical punishment of 21 months. Is that what's happening? Thanks! (64.252.34.115 (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC))

A better wording might be: "Clemens faces up to 30 years in prison and a $1.5 million fine [if the judge really wants to throw the book at him, he could], but current sentencing guidelines only call for 21 month if convicted [provided the judge doesn't have a reason to really hit him hard, he'll probably just get the recommended 21 months]". But if, for example, a person was suspected of doing a whole lot of nasty things, but all they could prove was that he perjured himself, then the judge might be inclined to give them a sentence longer than the recommended sentence, and he (the judge) would be legally allowed to dish out up to 30 years in jail, plus the fine, in such a case. Buddy431 (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

A deviation above sentencing guidelines by that amount would almost certainly be appealed. Shadowjams (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that any time someone gets sent to prison for any significant time it gets appealed anyway. Googlemeister (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah. And the vast majority of those appeals are rejected; still, wouldn't you ask your lawyer to look for grounds for an appeal if you were convicted of something? Has nothing to do with actual guilt or innocence. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In any case, an appeal based solely on the judge giving you the maximum sentence is not going to reverse the conviction. Googlemeister (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If the judge gives all of the other convicts in similar perjury cases 21 months and gives Clemens 30 years, Clemens can obviously make the case he's being picked on because he's a high-profile defendant. Similarly, a black guy who got that kind of treatment could claim racism. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I should have been more explicit. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines are to some extent mandatory, although recent Supreme Court decisions have changed that. The rule though is still that sentences outside of the guidelines are grounds for appeal. Despite popular perception appeals have to be based on some legal error; attorneys are not allowed to file frivolous appeals. As for appeals from sentencing, 18 U.S.C. 3742 [2]. Shadowjams (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Shadowjams, I am still confused. You say that the guidelines are (essentially) mandatory. Thus, Clemens (by mandate of the guidelines) faces 21 months. Where on earth is this notion of a 30 year sentence coming from? Especially given that the guidelines are mandatory. Thanks. (64.252.34.115 (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC))

As I understand it, 30 years is the maximum possible sentence for the offence he is currently facing, as defined in law for that offence. The 'guidelines', another law set semi-mandatory sentencing terms for most offences, including the one he is currently facing with depatures allowed, as somewhat defined by law and as the courts will ultimately determined as appropriate. If his sentence is outside the guidelines, it would likely be appealed, whether it will succeed of not will depend on numberous factors. If the guidelines set 21 months, then it seems unlikely a say 10 year sentence would stand, but who knows I guess. If the judge gives 31 years, this is a slam dunk case of improper sentence since no where does the law allow a sentence for the offence he is facing. Nil Einne (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)