Humanities desk
< March 25	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 27 >

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.

March 26

Agnes of France

Since Agnes of France was supposed to marry the Byzantine emperor so French-Byzantine relations would improve, have French-Byzantine relations gone bad when her husband was deposed, tortured and killed? (a question originally asked on the talk page of the article) A.Z. 01:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? No answers? I don´t remember very much why I asked this question a few months ago on the talk page of this article, but I was very interested on the answer at the time, since the article really had no such information. I´d guess people here on the Reference Desk would know something about it. A.Z. 04:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Emperor Manuel I arranged for the marriage between Agnes and his son, Alexius, not to 'improve' Franco-Byzantine relations, but as part of an attempt to seek allies in the Catholic west as a counter-weight to the dangerous bloc that had built up against him after the Peace of Venice in 1177, which linked Pope Alexander III, Venice and his most dangerous enemy of all, the Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick Barbarossa. As well as the marriage alliance with France he also, at the same time, arranged a similar treaty with William V of Montferrat in north-west Italy, whose son, Renier, married Manuel's daughter, Maria. But such alliances, you have to remember, were dynastic, rather than state related, and tended to expire with the death of one or more of the participants. By the time the Emperor Andronicus, Agnes' second husband, was deposed and killed in 1185, her father, Louis VII had been dead for five years, and France was ruled by her brother, Philip Augustus, who had little or no interest in the fate of his sister, preoccupied, as he was, with the reduction of Angevin power in France itself. There is no evidence that Philip showed any concern for his sister, who was by this time a Byzantine rather than a French princess in any case. Clio the Muse 04:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your response. It's hard for me to grasp so much at once, since I am not that familiar with this subject. But what I meant by my question is: did both the new rulers of France and the Byzantine empire (Agnes' brother and Isaac Angelos) get along well? Did the byzantine Empire continue to be an ally of France? If something like that happened today between two modern countries, both countries would stop being allies, and I'd guess there would be a war or at least serious sanctions by the UN to the country whose people murdered the husband of the sister of the leader of the other country. A.Z. 05:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just realize comparing those times with modern times the way I did makes no sense. But yet... My question was not about how Philip thought of his sister, but how France and the Bizantyne Empire related to each other after the change of leaders on both sides. A.Z. 05:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make my fundamental point again: marriage treaties of this kind were dynastic rather than state-related, and tended to expire with the death of one or more of the participants. In this case the lynchpin was Agnes' father, Louis VII, who died in 1180. Her brother, Philip Augustus, as I have said, had more important political priorities at home, and seems to have shown no concern whatsoever for the Byzantine state or for the fate of his sister. The parallel you are attempting to draw with modern diplomacy is not valid. Marriage alliances and dynastic treaties are very definitely a thing of the past. Clio the Muse 06:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Clio the Muse. I understood your point now. I'm pleased with the answer. A.Z. 06:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. Clio the Muse 06:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of Islamic Conference

Why non-majority Muslim countries Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Ivory Coast, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Mali, Mauritania, Surinam, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Niger, Mozambique and Togo can become members of OIC if they are not majority Muslim country?

Because they have significant Muslim minorities? -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 02:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Literature - in both its Wonderful and Terrifying Aspects

Alright... I'm looking for literature which treats the subject of what Melville called "the heartless voids and immensities of the universe" in Chapter 42 of Moby-Dick... in the first instance this can be literature which describes the beauty and vastness of Creation, on earth and beyond, and grants a cosmic vision of the whole, or stretches the limits of our capacity for wonder - examples include Paradise Lost, the Complete Works of Shakespeare, the works of Carl Sagan, the Bible, the tales of Lord Dunsany, the Thousand and One Nights, Hindu and Buddhist mythology, and Goethe's Faust.

In the second instance, this can mean works of either a comical or horrific nature which attempt to describe the apparently arbitrary and occasionally playful whims of God or of his oft-bewildering universe. Examples include Chesterton's The Man who was Thursday, Alice in Wonderland, the short stories of Philip K. Dick and H. P. Lovecraft and Poe, Kafka's collected works, the Twilight Zone television series, the stories and novels of Ray Bradbury, the Book of Job, Moby-Dick, and the works of J. L. Borges.

Thank you for all of your help! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.13.1.143 (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

For the second set, how about The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy or anything else by Douglas Adams ? StuRat 04:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MFU: For the second set, see MFU, MFU, or MFU by HC. Or just run a search for the wonderful terror of cosmic literature, or just hum it if you don't know the words. dr.ef.tymac 00:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think, by and large, you seem to have supplied your own answer, though whether it is proper to include all of Shakespeare's work in your first category is open to question: some of the minor plays are fairly pedestrian in nature. But anyway, out of a world of possibilities, I would place Les Chants de Maldoror by Comte de Lautreamont, and Melmoth the Wanderer by Charles Robert Maturin in your first category. For your second I have only one candidate: Bruno Schultz, whose two little fantasy novels, Street of Crocodiles and Sanatorium Under the Sign of the Hourglass, must count among the best of their kind ever written. Clio the Muse 05:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the second instance you might enjoy Auto-Da-Fe by Elias Canetti DDB 07:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DDB. I thought I should tell you that you have unconsciously linked Canetti's novel, Die Blendung, translated into English as Auto-da-Fe (Act of Faith), with the page touching on the Catholic treatment of Medieval heretics! There is no page on the novel. I think we can be reasonably certain that the questioner would most assuredly not enjoy the Auto-de-Fe in its original form! Clio the Muse 22:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC) oops thanks DDB[reply]

So, is it the opinion of the Reference Desk that the universe is in fact not immense and bewildering, or that only fiction and specifically the novel adequate to describing it?—eric 23:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find planet Earth immense and bewildering. I find certain cities immense and bewildering. The universe is a little bigger than these, I think. JackofOz 00:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My imagination is too limited to conceive what is 'immense and bewildering': only the novel leads me beyond!. And as far as cities are concerned London is the universe, is it not? Clio the Muse 05:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... not that I've heard, Clio, but maybe I'm not keeping up with current affairs. Who makes these decisions anyway? Why wasn't I consulted? JackofOz 06:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some transhumanist fiction--I got what you were talking about from A Fire Upon the Deep and The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect, the latter of which is available to read online. grendel|khan 17:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the original questioner... completely agreed that London IS the universe.

Tchaikovsky's favourite painting "Melancholy" (2)

I asked this question about 18 months ago and had no luck. Maybe some new faces will have the information I seek.

Tchaikovsky's favourite painting was said to be Melancholy. It shows a full moon rising over water, partly obscured by clouds, with some trees in the foreground. A print of it hung in his bedroom in Klin. I want to know the name of the painter. I've looked in a lot of places without success.

I first read of this in John Warrrack's biography Tchaikovsky (Hamish Hamilton, London, 1973, ISBN 0241 024 03), in which the painting is reproduced.

It was also referred to in a (? German) movie from around the late 70s. The movie was a psychological drama about a chess tournament in a European location. One scene is set in the home of one of the main characters, where the painting was hanging. There was a brief bit of dialogue about the painting and there was a reference made to it being Tchaikovsky's favourite. It might have been "Schwarz und Weiss wie Tage und Naechte" ("Black and White Like Day and Night") [1], but I can’t be sure since none of the sites I've found make any reference to this dialogue, and I don't have the video/DVD. Any help with the name of the movie would also be appreciated. JackofOz 05:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chess in the Cinema website might be useful in your search for the movie. They have quite a few stills from Schwarz und Weiss wie Tage und Nächte, maybe you recognize it. Skarioffszky 10:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be Arnold Bocklin's Isle of the Dead?--Wetman 12:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @ Sk. The stills don't reveal anything about the painting, unfortunately, but they do tell me this was probably the movie I remember. Thanks @ Wetman, but it's not Isle of the Dead. I have no reason to believe it's not called Melancholy. My main interest is still in the name of the painter. JackofOz 12:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned on page 235 of Through Others' Eyes as being given to him by an admirer but there is no reference to an artist. Maybe it is unknown. meltBanana 13:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @ MeltBanana. That sounds like yet another fascinating book I simply must get. Maybe whoever wrote page 235 didn't know the painter, but I can't believe nobody knows. I wonder how a print could have been obtained for the chess movie if the painter could not be identified. JackofOz 13:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1001 nights

in the fifth night tell me about the crime,justice,redemption happening there? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.143.25.50 (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Homework? - Akamad 11:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this about the Arabian Nights? Because those are the only "One Thousand and One Nights" that I can think of. --Luigifan 11:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course that's what is meant here. Look at the page to which your link redirects! − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, your question is far too vague. What it exactly is it that you are looking for? From the Tales of the Fifth Night (in the Richard Burton translation of The Arabian Nights) you have three choices: King Sindibad and his Falcon; The Tale of the Husband and the Parrot; and The Tale of the Prince and the Ogress. Do you have a particular story in mind and, more important, have you read it? Try to be more specific and I will see what I can do. Clio the Muse 13:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magic in Renaissance Italy

Which cultural levels could magical belief (i.e. astrology, divination, witchcraft, folk-healing) be found in the Italian city states during the Renaissance (c1300-1600)? 172.141.147.44 13:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Tom[reply]

"Ceremonial magic" (i.e. Grimoires and magic circles inside pentacles etc.) is sometimes thought of as medieval, but was actually more of a renaissance thing than medieval, and was practiced by some members of the social elite classes in the Italian city-states. Lower classes would have practiced a less pretentious form of occult belief more in accord with local traditions (i.e. with much less use of Hebrew letters and words and abstract geometrical figures). AnonMoos 14:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should think astrology would have been right up there as well. There was no real difference between the fields of astronomy and astrology until the 16th century. Crypticfirefly 02:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unarchive - Old webpage

Hi,

I want to retrieve the webpage I saw in 2004. This is a forum discussion (forumhub.com) and it has been deleted from that website.

www.archive.org has archive only from 2005.

Any other way??

Thanks Slmking Slmking 14:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this question would be better suited to the computer reference desk. 67.104.146.56 16:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I look at forumhub.com on the wayback machine, I get archives back to 1999.[2] Are these not the archives you need? Skittle 18:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I got it. I tried the same, but dont know - it was not working in the morning. Slmking 22:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Vs. Secular Historiography

Why do the viewpoints of Arnold J. Toynbee and Karl Marx vary at such an extent ? Do both of these researchers borrow from Aristotle ? And can someone tell if/how Hegel has influenced the philosophy oh history of Samuel Huntingdon and Francis Fukuyama ?

Hegel has definitely influenced Fukuyama's work. See The End of History and the Last Man in which Fukuyama quotes extensively from Hegel. GreatManTheory 15:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In studying history, I am sometimes confronted with a material and spiritual paradox. The works of Charles Taylor has been very helpful to me in reconciling the irreconcilable.

For example, most of Canada's early historians were mystics, priests and nuns. Jerome Le Royer de la Dauversiere was the co-founder of Montreal. He wanted to build an marian city like Lourdes, so he called it Ville-Marie. Of course, they were the leaders of the devout movement coming from 17th century France.

Among religious historians and figures : there are Jean-Jacques Olier, Jeanne Mance, Marguerite Bourgeoys, Jeanne Le Ber, Etienne-Michel Faillon, Samuel de Champlain, Jeanne Le Ber, Marguerite D'Youville, Lionel Groulx, Thomas Chapais, Lucien Campeau, Albert Tessier, Charles-Honoré Laverdière, Hospice-Anthelme Verreau, Archange Godbout, Guy-Marie Oury, Auguste-Honoré Gosselin, Amédée Gosselin, Azarie Couillard-Després, Elie-J. Auclair, Aurélien Boisvert, Ivanhoé Caron, Jean-Baptiste-Antoine Ferland, Arthur Maheux, Antoine Bernard, Pierre Trépanier, Cyprien Tanguay, Jean-Baptiste-Antoine Allaire, Édouard Lecompte, Hugh Mason Wade, Henri-Raymond Casgrain, Pierre-Georges Roy and Lucia Ferretti.

Among atheistic historians : Marcel Trudel, Gérard Bouchard, Fernand Ouellette, Paul-André Linteau, Luc Noppen, Guy Frégault, François-Xavier Garneau, Benjamin Sulte, Maurice Séguin, Denis Vaugeois, Marie-Thérèse Lefebvre, Jacques Rouillard, Jocelyn Létourneau, Louis Cornellier, Laurent Mailhot, Robert-Lionel Séguin, Jean-Claude Germain, Maurice Lemire, Normand Séguin, William John Eccles, Allan Greer, Jacques Ferron and Brian Young, Roger Le Moine, and Jacques G. Ruelland.

In 1993, researcher Ronald Rudin created a major historical controversy when he claimed that some of the modern atheist historians were deliberately ignoring or putting down historical information that had been collected by their religious predecessors.

Is this type of debate relevant in other countries ? I have heard of similar cases in Ireland, France and Italy. In France, Jean Sevilla wrote a book on the same topic in 2005. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.234.87 (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

My goodness, what a wall of names! I'm not at all sure what your dilemma is. There are, after all, only two ways of researching and writing history: a good way and a bad way. Whether a particular historian is an Athiest, a Christian, an Agnostic or a Buddhist is quite irrelevant to this essential point. Their written work, no matter what the interpretation they favour, has to be based on a proper gathering and analysis of evidence; in other words, it has to be true to the past. Much has changed since the nineteenth century, but even so the example set by the great German historian Leopold von Ranke still commands a considerable degree of relevance, standing in opposition to the Hegelian and Marxist tradition, which would deduce the particular example from the general rule. All historical writing has to take primary material, in whatever fashion it presents itself, as its point of departure, and try to recreate the past as it was actually lived and experienced. I have no information on the debate generated by Ronald Rudin, so I confine myself to saying that if any individual historian, Christian or Athiest, rejects, ignores or submerges valuable source material simply because it comes from a different intellectual tradition, then they are not worthy of the name. That is not to say that they cannot challenge the evidence, or the interpretations placed upon it by past generations. I can see nothing wrong with a contemporary historian stripping away mystical explanations to arrive at a core empirical truth, one that overlaps and subsumes all perspectives. In England the historiographical debate, such as it is, is not between Christian and non-Christian perspectives, but between different ways of making sense of the past. There was a great debate between the Marxist school, represented above all by E. H. Carr, and the Conservative, most ably defended by Geoffrey Elton, a division, it might be said, between the role of abstract forces and the actions of real people. It adds, I suppose, to the vigour of academic life, but there is no great moral contradiction; the perspective one adopts inevitably depends on forms of argument, and the organisation of evidence that one happens to find most persuasive-and for me that will always be Geoffrey Elton! But in concluding I have to say that your 'material and spiritual paradox', insofar as I understand this, simply does not exist. Learn to recognise good writing and disciplined history from wherever it comes. Above all, think, sift, analyse and organise for yourself. Live dangerously! Greetings from one historian to another. Clio the Muse 19:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. The paradox I was refering to wasn't about the authors listed but about the radical difference in opinion between Toynbee and Marx. Their conclusions are based on detailed and contradictory research, which means people have to interpret and choose sources wisely.

No one is against debunking myths : the problem here is revisionism, especially when it comes to separatist historians who are deeply tied to one political party. What would happen if the Scottish National Party had its own brand of twenty different historians ?

Most of the historians mentionned aren't exactly atheists : however they promote separatist Parti québécois ideology, which is radical secularism, idealism, statism and republicanism.

Yes, they do have to choose wisely and well. The differences between Toynbee and Marx are less to do with 'contradictory research', and much more to do with conflicting intellectual traditions. I cannot comment on the political situation in Canada, but I am always deeply suspicious of historians who allow their craft to be tailored to meeting the needs of a particular political movement. That is not to say that historians should not have political commitments: they are all too human, after all. However, proper historical understanding has to transcend the imperatives of both ideology and nation. It is, I think, sad for Canada, sad for any country, when historians become little better than political ciphers; but it is even sadder for them. Clio the Muse 22:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. Brilliant. No Sarcasm Intended. Yes, the whole fuss may have been an ugly one, and that I regret. Yet seeing the above words more than compensate. The above words are wise ones indeed, and I'm truly grateful to the author for providing them. Loomis 01:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bag costumes

http://www.ppp.org/prod/prods/00-09-seussical/photos/costumes/hunches%203.jpg http://www.ppp.org/prod/prods/00-09-seussical/photos/costumes/hunches%204.jpg http://www.ppp.org/prod/prods/00-03-eden/opening-costumes/germs.jpg

Anyone know if these performance art costumes have a specific name? I'm a high school drama teacher, looking to get some for mime lessons.

http://www.ppp.org/prod/prods/00-09-seussical/photos/ACT%202/IMG165.JPG —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.111.131.157 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 26 March 2007.

As far as I can tell, they're just called "body bags", and are a somewhat simplified form of zentai. I found a couple of websites on google that sell them [3] [4], although if you can get hold of the lycra cloth they look like they'd be pretty easy to make. FiggyBee 09:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion-For or Against

Question removed. User informed on talk page. This is a reference desk, for providing factual answers to questions. It is not for discussing this sort of thing, or providing opinions. I recommend you read the article abortion, and the articles that link from it. If you want to discuss this, there are many message boards and chat rooms on the internet. Thank you. Skittle 18:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is very rude to remove somebody's question without consulting them first. I wanted opinions, but backed up with facts. Please do not be so rude next time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.73.15 (talk • contribs)

I am sorry you feel that way, but there is nothing rude about removing a non-reference question from the reference desk. Quite the contrary, in fact -- after your mistake in thinking this was an Internet forum, Skittle could have just deleted the entire category; instead, he helped you understand why this is not the space for such debate, and then went out of his way to point you towards an article that refers to several pages, including Abortion debate, which already contain the entirety of the current debate, with all the facts (and biases) that people bring to the table.

You asked for arguments for and against abortion, with facts to back them up; you got directed to all the arguments for and against abortion, with facts to back them up. A quite successful example of reference desk work, I think, for which Skittle deserves praise, not misdirected frustration. Jfarber 10:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thankyou. I misread Skittle's response. I apologize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.73.15 (talk • contribs)

I don't mean to be rude, but I think there's no Internet forum with people as great as those here on the Reference Desk. If you all happen to answer questions on an Internet forum in between answering questions here, I would like to know the website so I can join this forum and ask Skittle's and Jfarber's opinions os a wide range of subjects. A.Z. 23:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When were the provinces of Indonesia created?

I'm working on another in my Territorial Evolution series, and I chose Indonesia; however, I'm finding it difficult to find out when certain provinces were created. Statoids lacks specific dates for many, and in a few cases (Lampung, Southeast Sulawesi) contains duplicate entries, so I have little clue when these provinces were created. Can anyone help? --Golbez 20:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After some research, in 1961 Bengkulu and Lampung were added and two provinces in Sulawesi were split into four. I can try and find an exact date there, but are you looking for all provinces or just those two? Can you link to the Statoids page you mention, i could not find it.—eric 22:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All provinces, I need to know the dates each province was made/split/whatever. And the page is [statoids.com/uid.html here], the change history is at the bottom. Southeast Sulawesi and Lampung are mentioned in both 1964 and 1974. (Actually, so is Central Sulawesi, I think) --Golbez 23:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti in Liverpool

File:DSCF3634.jpg i've seen a graffiti character like this in many places around liverpool. does anyone know who the artist is or any other info about it?

Try some of these sites:

Liverpool discussion forum - there's a thread on Liverpool graffiti
Liverpool art blog - has several entries on graffiti (huge file)
Some more search results

--Anchoress 00:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that around too. I always assumed it was by Stok. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.75.128.200 (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Does God need a number?

Why would a perfect god need a number? This is my view and I am looking for a name for it. I have been looking for it in Template:Belief_systems and failed. Any ideas? Ozone 20:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A number? What kind of number? Dismas|^(talk) 21:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I learned in my religion class, I really can't verify its authenticity:

In the Book of Revelation, numbers are frequently used to signify different things. 6 represents imperfection, and is the number for Satan. 7 is the number that represents perfection, and might be the number for God.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 21:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I though 6 was a Perfect number! Sʟυмgυм • т • c 21:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh jeez, I meant like in monotheism god's number is 1, in bitheism it is 2, in polytheism it can be anything greater than 1. Ozone 21:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. So you're asking, why would a perfect god have to be definable as being either a single god, or a specific number of gods? You're asking for the name of a belief that such things are irrelevant to a perfect god? Yes? That sounds similar to some early jewish and christian beliefs, which possibly lead to such things as god refering to itself in the plural at various places. If this is what you mean, I'll see if I can find anything... 81.157.44.217 18:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numerology always seemed silly to me, too. StuRat 21:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not entirely clear what you are asking for (either a specific name for a doctrinal view that disclaims the spiritual relevance of numbers, or explanation for why specific numbers correlate to specific concepts or ...?) but the practical use for human practitioners is not unlike the practical use for language itself. Some systems depict numbers as even more effective than words for communicating certain spiritual or esoteric principles. (See e.g., Kabbalah#Number-Word_mysticism, Gematria). The tip of the iceberg is not even the tip of the Iceberg. dr.ef.tymac 23:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To further confuse things, most christian demoninations believe in the trinity of god. -- Diletante 01:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While reading the article on Unitarianism, I noticed that Unitarian Universalism don't have any doctrines about the "oneness" or trinity or god. This kind of sounds like what you are asking about. -- Diletante 01:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The challenge of using Unitarianism, which our minister (and our vestibule pamphlets) calls "a faith without a creed", as the appropriate answer for the questioner, is that it doesn't address the other things the questioner wants -- for example, the questioner asks why a PERFECT god would need a number, but Unitarianism doesn't believe God to be perfect, either. Instead, in trying to leave the interpretation of what God is and isn't open to all, a vaccum is created, in which there is very little one can say about God at all in Unitarianism. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, mind you. It's just not likely what this questioner is looking for. Jfarber 18:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess your ability to read what a questioner is looking for is better than mine. I was just pointing out some facts that seemed related to that very vague question, namely belief systems where god is not ennumerated. -- Diletante 00:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has it ever occurred to you that the anti-Christ might not actually be a human??? Think about it, a 6 is represented by W in Hebrew. Therefore, 6-6-6 is equivalent to WWW (world wide web...) Who knows, the anti-Christ might be lurking somewhere in the internet. Or maybe even on Wikipedia! (Wikipedia starts with a W)--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll play this straight, although it seems tongue in cheek, and probably deserves the Star Trek reference when the question was asked "Why does God need a star ship?"

God doesn't need a number, but faithul people are called to worship god. There is substantial debate about how people worship. In some Christian traditions, community members gather together at church each week to share communion with God. Some people argue that idolatry must be avoided at all costs, and so symbols are shunned. Others don't see some symbolic references as worship of idols, but natural expressions of faith.

Added to which, almost anything may be symbolic of something. In Hindu Pantheism (according to 'More Joy of Mathematics'), The number one represents the universe. the number two represents men. The number three represents woman (or discord) and the number five represents the union of man and woman, or marriage. Or some such, I'm fuzzy on detail. Now, where is my star ship? DDB 09:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Why would a perfect god need a number?" - well, it is better to have a number than not to have a number, and a perfect being must have the best of all attributes (otherwise they would not be perfect) therefore a perfect being must have a number (shamelessly stolen from Anselm's ontological argument). Gandalf61 14:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you wonder why there has to be a certain number of gods in religion? 惑乱分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 14:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the OP got the idea of a number being associated with God wrong. In most Christian Sunday school classes I have attended where Jesus is beleived to be God they use the letters of the word JOY to represent the concept of putting Jesus (God) first, Others second and Youself last. In other words God is Number One, Comes First, Numero Uno, Top Guy, Head Honcho, El Supremo, Man of the Year, Big Cheeze... Nebraska bob 16:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, Ozone, you would be interested in looking over some of Hinduism's beliefs, since I'm sure some version of that will believe something similar. Maybe Advaita Vedanta comes close? Skittle 18:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you may be looking for pantheism.--Pharos 19:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oligarchy

Is the law of oligarchy the same things as iron law of oligarchy? ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.213.184.143 (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I assume you are referring to the work of Robert Michels, Political Parties in particular? In that case, I imagine both expressions refer to the same thing. But please let me know if you have something more specific in mind. Clio the Muse 23:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're doing CCEA Government and Politics (for which this is on the syllabus, at this time of the year), your teacher might be helpful.martianlostinspace 16:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]