Humanities desk
< September 9	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 11 >

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.

September 10

Does anyone here have a subscription to Time Magazine?

If so, would you care to provide me with the full text of this article? I want to see if it can be used for referencing purposes at Hindawi affair. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The usual place for such requests is WP:REX. Someone here may be willing to oblige, though. Deor (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually not aware of that page. But the reference desks seem to get more attention than the WikiProject, so I'll leave this thread open for the time being. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Jesus died for our sins...

...why do people go to hell? Google yields nothing authoritative: i'm after the 'official', theological answer, what the Pope (for example) would say if i asked him.

Thanks much for your attention, friendly wikipedians! Dan Hartas (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty standard Christian theology. You have to seek salvation, it's not automatic. Where have you searched so far? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 13:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

just several variants on that question, i'm bad at creative googling. i know that answer, but it doesn't satisfy the fallacy i'm trying to get to grips with. a utilitarian (or most people with standard moral sentiments, and a strong stomach), in a world with the Christian God, would surely be justified in killing all newborns immediately after baptism, so that only one person has to suffer the eternal torment of hell, and the rest of the human population gets to live in paradise. i guess the standard answer to that point is: that's essentially what Jesus did, in taking on the sins of the world and suffering for them. i was asking the question because i was wondering how that is squared with people going to hell post-Christ. (asking as an atheist apologist) Dan Hartas (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Christian, but not really interested in being an apologist here. (It's OR anyways.) The basic idea of salvation (along with other ideas from the New Testament) doesn't really support this kind of "utilitarian" viewpoint. This doesn't necessarily indicate a fallacy- it's a point of view explicitly expressed in the NT stories. See the parable of the shepherd (representing God) who leaves his 99 sheep alone to chase after the 1 who ran away. Or the prodigal son, in which the son who ran away is at least temporarily honored more than the faithful son. Staecker (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Official views differ, usually only slightly (but hard-liners would obviously disagree). See Salvation (Christianity). Staecker (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A related discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2013 August 26#"burning in hell" metaphor.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The key concept here is universal reconciliation, which is believed by some Christians but not others, but far more in the first and the last two centuries of Christianity than in the intervening 16. I don't know if any religious authority has considered this, but it seems like such a change in outlook might be linked with the broad concept of apocatastasis and the lifting of curses. It seems like in recent times, childbirth doesn't need to be painful, nakedness is not shameful, menstruation is optional, work becomes ever more scarce (and perhaps our societies will even come to accept that), even the serpent's sting is no longer so deadly. Why should the Garden of Eden not seem to be drawing near? Wnt (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Menstruation is optional...?" How so? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Wnt (talk) 222:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, science marches on! Thanks for that link. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've always considered menstruation a shocking design flaw, so anything science can do to improve on our Maker's basic concepts is welcome. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, remember that the actual religious idea is that the Garden of Eden design was better (though the informal story of menstruation being the curse of Eve is not really a clear part of it). This is really not that different from the scientific notion that there is a "best design" (or set of designs) for an organism filling an ecological niche, which evolution approximates to a limited extent - provided, that is, one sees Eden as a set of archetypes or a prior version of the cosmos rather than as part of the physical past in the mundane physics sense of time. Wnt (talk) 04:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on your understanding of the key concepts of Hell, baptism, afterlife and salvation. For one, baptism requires a conscious decision on the part of the baptised, so infant baptism doesn't count. That practice evolved from Roman pagan dedication rituals. Salvation was made available to humanity because of Christ's death, but it must still be actively attained. There is no such thing as "once saved, always saved", I don't know where people keep getting that from. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"infant baptism doesn't count"? Dan is asking for official doctrine, so obviously infant baptism does count for millions of christians. He even specifically mentioned the Pope, who very much does believe in infant baptism. I invite you to visit google to verify that there is indeed such thing as "once saved always saved", and you might even learn where it came from. These are doctrines which massive numbers of people believe in. Whether these doctrines are true or not is not the point here. Obviously from the question Dan doesn't think any of them are true. Staecker (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is official doctrine, I just forgot to mention whose it was (Baptists, Adventists, etc.). I'm not saying "once saved always saved" is not part of some doctrine, only that it is not supported by Scripture, but since we're not discussing the veracity of doctrine, I guess that whether it is supported or not would be a moot point. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet. Where can I get one of those 'once saved' things, or am I already good since I was baptized already? It'd be nice to have that in my pocket. --Onorem (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth mentioning the lake of fire motif with Ammit, as there is apparently/arguably an Egyptian connection to Israelite philosophies. (I should add that the diversity of the ancient Egyptian concept of the soul is worth considering. It's tempting to project modern or foreign interpretations on this (and I'm afraid what little I've read of the topic has done so), but whether it is ancient interpretations of the ba, ka, "heart", shadow, and name of the deceased, or modern conceptions of the unique soul, atman, genome, "memome", the soul of a person washed of evil/suffering in the waters of Lethe, etc., there would seem to be quite a range of ideas to work with. Wnt (talk) 07:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest answer, with the broadest application to the most branches of Christianity, is that Jesus died for all people who choose to believe in Him and follow his teachings, for any given value of "believe" and "follow". Hell is for those who choose to not believe and follow. All people have the ability to choose to follow and believe, so all people have the option to avoid hell. John 3:16 is probably the most consice statement in the bible to support this view, and most Christian branches hold this as core to their theology, though of course, they may differ on what believing in and following Jesus entails on the individual level, most that I can think of at least conceptually agree with this notion of salvation and hell. --Jayron32 16:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, considering that the OP mentioned the pope, it should be noted that the official Roman Catholic position is not that Jesus died for "all people who choose to believe in Him and follow his teachings", but rather that He died for every single human being, including those that reject God. ("There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer.", Catechism of the Catholic Church, 605). In light of that position, it is a legitimate question how it would be just to punish people for sins that were already paid for by Jesus on the cross. - Lindert (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's more on the Catholic view of the subject, which may explain some things:[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the Catholic view is not at all in conflict with my statement. Since all people can choose to believe, all people can choose to accept Christ's gift. The statement you presented from the Catholic church confirms exactly that. --Jayron32 09:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Private schools vs. public schools

In this article, it seems that the author concludes, "In short, today's study shows that sending your kid to private school — particularly one run by a holy order like the Jesuits — is still a better way to ensure that he or she will get into college. Just don't expect all education experts to agree." The basis for the line of thinking is that the author presumes that Catholic schools train students to think critically, or students in Catholic schools just happen to be trained to think critically, so they do better on the SAT than public school students. I would like to know what factors may play into the higher SAT scores. Are Catholic parents generally wealthier enough to send their kids to private Catholic schools in the first place and so they could afford private tutoring and other parental involvement for their children? What is the difference between sending a child to a Benedictine school versus a Jesuit school in terms of education? Finally, how many non-Catholic parents would send their children to a Catholic school? Finally, is this talking about public schools as a whole, including poor inner-city public schools and high-functioning suburban public schools (due to being funded by the property taxes of wealthier landowners)? 140.254.226.240 (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not an American, but an Australian teacher here, but I'm sure there are many parallels. Claims such as that in the article are statistical generalisations. Every student has to have relationships with several teachers in a school, dozens of them in most cases. Not everybody gets on with everybody else in the same way. That a school does statistically "better" on one measure does not mean that that school will be best for a particular child on all measures. The major advantages private schools have is that they tend to be chosen by parents who value education highly and that's reflected in the values of the students, and private schools can eliminate a lot of the lower performing kids, by many strategies. This means their results look better, even if teaching practices are no better, and potentially disruptive kids are removed. It ain't simple. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Songwriters whose work is in the public domain (UK)

I'm looking for public domain songs, that I might be able to perform and record without having to worry about royalties. I don't mean traditional songs, they're fairly easy to find. What I'm after are songs in popular genres by identifiable songwriters/composers who died before 1943 (the law in the UK, where I live, is that copyright lasts for the life of the creator(s) plus 70 years), especially where recordings are available as my ability to read music is minimal. Any suggestions? --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, lots of good ragtime stars. 164.107.103.68 (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links added, although Confrey, Davis, Cotten and James all died well after 1943. Rojomoke (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As did Baker. I was only aware of Sousa as a composer of instrumental music, didn't know about his operettas, so that's something I could look into - although some of them bring up the complication of when his librettists died. Blind Boy Fuller is one of many blues musicians I could investigate. Thanks. Any more with any more? --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow turned Etta Baker into Etta James. Rojomoke (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not the easiest approach, but you could look through pages like 1943#Deaths and skim the descriptions of the people listed. Katie R (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert and Sullivan? --Phil Holmes (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

German Togoland

The Germans made Togo into a colony/protectorate in 1884 until 1914. But how did the Germans treat the local Togolese? What facilities did the Germans build for them? Were there rights respected? --Coompararevsky (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Here's a good writeup: Germany's Treatment Of Native Peoples — A Dark Colonial Record. That's from 1940, when Germany wasn't too popular in some parts of the world. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And a more modern look: Togo: German Colonial Rule. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In another German colony in Africa, German Southwest Africa now Namibia, there was the Herero and Namaqua Genocide in 1904-7 which is fairly well documented. Alansplodge (talk) 07:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deer in Wales

The white-tailed deer is very popular in Texas (USA). What species of deer are most popular in Wales? --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers are hard to come by but Wales has Red deer, Fallow deer, Roe deer, Sika deer and Muntjac Deer. See also Annex 1 of Wild Deer managemnt in Wales from the Forestry Commission. Nanonic (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones have the bigest antlers?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can tell by the size of their shoes. μηδείς (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deer species in Wales confirms that fallow deer are the most numerous. Red deer (originally native, but now only a few small populations of escapees from deer parks) are the largest animals and can have impressively large antlers. Red deer are now farmed for venison in Wales.[3] Alansplodge (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Wales has the smallest population of wild deer in UK".[4] Alansplodge (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. You are a ~~deerling~~ darling!--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Copeland Gang

Does anyone have any information on the "foot adze" that were used in building the scaffolding that hung the Copeland Gang? The famous Southern Outlaws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.216.50.88 (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foot and adze seem to have nothing in common, unless one is contemplating chopping off one's own or others' feet with a Stone Age edging implement. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about Adze#Foot adze. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or this? (See the third paragraph, last sentence.) Bielle (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]