Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 August 23

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 23

Internal heirarchies in Venetian guilds

Can anyone tell me how Venetian artisan guilds were structured in the 16th Century? were they democratic? who was the head and what was his title? I'm especially interested in the glassmakers.

Thanks in advance Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Double-checking with some of my renaissance books; They were somewhat democratic, but the Venetian guilds were relatively weak. Very subordinate to and regulated by the government (as opposed to the guilds of Florence, for example). There was the general assembly (capitolo general, all members not in debt to the guild), the the guild council (banca, "bench") They elected a leader called a gastaldo (bailiff) by ballot. The gastaldo was a bit of a figurehead (not unlike the Doge himself), with the council having most of the power. The council members initially elected their own successors, but this was changed in 1531 due to widespread nepotism. After that new council members were elected by an electors (zonta) elected by the general assembly, where relatives of the outgoing council members were ineligible for election. The glass-blowers (and to a lesser extent, the ship-builders) were of course more regulated than most guilds, too, due to their strategic importance. Most infamously the glass-blowers were supposedly banned from leaving the island of Murano without permission, and banned from leaving Venice under penalty of death. --Pykk (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks heaps, Pykk Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Since popping over to Europe to save the day with the help of a smart, gorgeous sidekick isn't a viable career option . . .

I'm fascinated by the universe of symbolism, but the profession of "symbologist" is just something Dan Brown made up for his hero Robert Langdon. Is there anything like that really out there in the academic world that would allow me to explore how humans throughout the ages have used, abused, and been impacted by symbols, openly and otherwise? If there is, what would it entail exactly? Is there some field of study that would encompass both "symbology" and folklore, another interest of mine? In folklore I'm interested in the underlying meanings, the symbolism as it were - what the stories really mean to us, what our need is for stories. I want to know what our need is for stories and symbols. What kind of field could I go into, where I could study not only our stories and our symbols, but why it is that they have such power over us? - Future Symbologist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.139.75 (talk) 01:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Excluding symbols as per crosses and strange marks .. in the field of folklore etc the study of symbols and underlying meanings, (and reason for telling the tale) has been done (see Folklore , Folkloristics amongst others) - specifically the study (Literary analysis redirects) of motifs and elements in stories has been done.. Even so far as to the classification of stories into various fundamental types in a endless variety of ways.. and the psychology thereof..

In fact the study of the study of literary analysis is a subject in itself - it's that popular :)

When I say 'done' I mean "a lot of it" (and not necessarily "done to death") - there's no doubt that this subject has many academics working on it.. Don't let that put you off. I'm sure I've missed out many relevant links and key words, which others will fill in.

As for study of the symbolism of symbols and their use - I'm sure there's a name for that, and people who do it. But I don't know what it's called. Though wikipedia does : see symbol , Archetype (also relevent to literature/folktales) , specifically Symbology, and Semiotics. (Iconography you should probably look at too.) (There's a lot to read - I told you it was popular!)

83.100.250.79 (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Off the top of my head - Symbolic anthropology seems to cover most of your interests and more. Nanonic (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh and also Philology and inner links. For the study of the folktale side of things I suppose the standard way is to pass all your exams, go to university - probably to study literature (english or otherwise) , picking hopefully a university that specialises in the things you are interested in. There probably are specialised courses and departments as well. Or you could do it in your spare time.83.100.250.79 (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

IN a very broad sense, a Semiotician is a studier of symbols, but in a much broader sense than Dan Brown considers for his character. Semitoics is the study of the relationship between the symbolic representation for a thing and the thing itself; it's more of a linguistic study than a anthropological one, but as Semiotics literally means "sign studies", that would also fit the literal job title of "Symbologist". --Jayron32 05:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Petropavlovsk

What exactly was the point of the siege of Petropavlovsk? I get the impression that all British and French forces involved in the battle were in the region before the Crimean War broke out; if so, it seems to me that there would be no good reason to need to eliminate such a small, weak, and isolated Russian town. Nyttend (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Presumably because Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky was the home of the Russian Pacific Fleet at the time (they did not yet possess Vladivostok). By the way, did Admiral Price actually commit suicide during the battle? Maybe he didn't feel so great about it either. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

He had a stutter, and trying to pronounce the name of the place drove him off the deep end. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he wanted to give the russians a sporting chance, a truly noble deed.83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The British and French squadron were pursuing the 44-gun frigate Aurora across the Pacific from Chile. The battle occurred after Aurora took refuge in Petropavlovsk. There are conflicting sources as to whether Price committed suicide the night before, or after the battle.—eric 15:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Pretending that an author is still alive

I'm wondering if there have been any cases of someone deciding to continue writing works under an author's name after that author has died, without telling anyone that the author was dead. For example, an author writes the first few parts of a multi-part series and then dies, but the publishers like how popular it is and secretly get someone else to finish it while claiming that it's being done by the original author. I imagine it would be difficult to do this today, but in the past...? (I don't mean pretending that "new manuscripts have been been uncovered", and so forth — just cases where they actually want people to think that the author is alive and writing away.) -- 203.97.105.173 (talk) 10:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not exactly what you're looking for, but I bet there are some who read Robert Ludlum's thrillers who don't know that he's dead, and his name is now used on books by various other writers. See here for details. The same applies to V. C. Andrews. I suppose the most successful cases would be the ones we don't know about, obviously. Karenjc 12:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I used to think Franklin W. Dixon was a real person...does that count? Adam Bishop (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul McCartney, duh. ;-) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Two of the four Beatles are confirmed to have gone to That Great Gig in the Sky. If Ringo goes before Paul, will there be some arguing that the Beatles are all dead? (Though technically they were dead in 1970.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sort of what you are looking for: the Nancy Drew series continues to be published, 79 years after the first book came out, and the collective pseudonym Carolyn Keene continues to get author credit. The first Nancy writer, Mildred Benson, died in 2002. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard's Mission Earth was a ten novel series, nine of which were apparently written and published under his name after his death in 1986.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Then there are the five "Books of Moses", the first five books of the Bible, traditionally ascribed to Moses himself, which is funny considering that the death of Moses is described in there somewhere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Variations of the situation the OP posits are not uncommon. Following the death of the popular novelist Virginia Andrews (as Karenjc mentioned above), further works continued to appear with the cover attribution of "Virginia Andrews^TM" clearly designed so that the casual buyer/reader would not initially realise that these were works by another hand; I believe there are other instances in the same genre. This practice blurs into that sometimes known as "sharecropping", where a still-living well-known author, unable through age, ill-health or other commitments to complete a particular full work on their own, contributes (typically) a plot outline of a novel whose actual prose is then written by a less-well-known or at least more impecunious author who is then billed on the cover as a minor collaborator, e.g. as "by John Smith & Joe Soap": this may continue, or be initiated, after John Smith's death, using further plot outlines written by Smith for the purpose, or his own preserved unutilized working notes; consider for example the still-living Tom Clancy, many of whose fans were/are probably unclear as to who is responsible for what published under his various self-branded franchises.

Not infrequently, as with Fuhghettaboutit's Nancy Drew example, an apparently real author's name was actually a publisher's "house name" or a pseudonymous franchise all along, and thus the death of the original principal writer(s) need not affect the continuance of the operation: a variation of this is the formerly very popular mystery writer "Ellery Queen", a name which began as the collective pseudonym of two specific collaborators (a quite common practice in itself, see for example David Eddings or Dan Brown, both names of the male halves of spousal collaborations), but which later also included novels by other writers, including Avram Davidson and Theodore Sturgeon.

Although many writers, for various respectable reasons, publish books under one or more pseudonyms exclusive to them, the copyright notice in the indicia on the verso of a book's title page will usually attribute it to that pseudonym or even to their real name; if instead a book's copyright is attributed to its publisher or to an unrelated company name, it may be an example of one of the above authorship-blurring practices: not always, however, because some authors find it advantageous for tax purposes to form a limited company and assign the copyright to that. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not quite what you're looking for but, L. Ron Hubbard is still writing novels despite having "deliberately discarded his body to conduct his research in spirit form, and was now living 'on a planet a galaxy away.'" Must make it hard to type. APL (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh. This was already mentioned. APL (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

A book I'm reading currently, Ripley Under Ground, is about a group of artists who, when a successful artist friend dies, pretend he is still alive and forge more of his paintings. A lucrative business. Not quite an author, but it's the same idea. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 11:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought that artists were never successful until they died. Googlemeister (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers. -- 203.97.105.173 (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

When "Martin Ross" died Edith Somerville went on writing books and insisted Ross's name remained on them as she was helping in a spiritual way. Somerville and Ross which is sort of what you were looking for..hotclaws 18:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

How best to spend £1000000 to increase the sum of happiness the most?

When I die, I want my money to be used with the objective of making the greatest increase in happiness or the greatest alleviation of unhappiness. Accordingly I've been thinking of leaving all my money to Oxfam, a UK charity that works in the developing world. But is there any better way of achieving my objective? £1000000 is just a convenient figure for my wealth upon my death - the actual figure could be less or hopefully more. I assume that, for the sake of arguement, that giving £1 worth of value each to a million (third-world) people would increase the sum of happiness more than giving £1000000 to just one person. Sorry, I think it would be spent most effectively among humans, so I'm not thinking of bequesting a cat's home. 78.149.186.253 (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

As a glib non-answer - to increase the happiness of others - a good idea might be to not accrue and hoard vast sums of cash - since it doesn't grow on trees - but appears to originate in other peoples pockets??83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

But by hoarding money, he's making it more scarce, thereby increasing the value of everyone else's money. EamonnPKeane (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Money does grow, although not always on trees. Consider a desert island scenario - I build a chair out of drift-wood. I sell the chair to someone for £1. Both our wealth increases - I have not stolen a £1 out of their pocket. Enjoying the wealth during my lifetime - a very brief period compared with eternity - gives me the motivation to create more chairs or other goods or services of value. If I did not make the chair, then the standard of living of the desert-island population would stay the same or decrease. If everyone made a chair for themselves only, then the benefits of specialisation and differing skills or aptitudes would be lost. 78.149.186.253 (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Your analogy gets more complicated given that captains of industry don't live on desert islands, they live in outrageously expensive homes and pay the lowest wages they can get away with, to the people who do the actual work. Regarding bequeathing your money - how do you know it will be well-managed after you're gone? Wouldn't it be better to distribute it during your lifetime, so you know where it's going? If I were in your Oxford shoes, I would do just that - and specifically, I would invest in education in those third-world countries, based on the old theory that it's of the greatest value to teach someone how to improve themselves rather than just handing them something and saying "see ya". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

While that's true in board strokes it's not always true and it would be better to state it with some qualifier like "many". Not all "captains of industry" are the evil corporate sociopaths you state.--162.84.164.115 (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't claim they are evil sociopaths. But if you want to characterize them that way, that's your business. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure on that desert island 1 pound of wealth was created because you spent some amount of time creating wealth in the form of a chair. I assume your buddy on the island earned that pound by doing a similar amount of work. Otherwise one of you is ripping off the other. APL (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Some references that may or may not help you:
(1) you might enjoy reading Utilitarianism.
(2) this article argues (though it only looked at Americans) that the greatest happiness comes from having pleasurable experiences rather than acquiring material possessions. So you might consider endowing a fund that sends inner-city kids to summer camp, or provides them with theatre tickets, etc.
(3) This is a rating for Oxfam UK in terms of how much of the money actually goes to the people being helped. You can look up other charities you might be considering on the same website.
All best with your laudable goal! WikiJedits (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've observed over time that the usual argument that "happiness comes from having pleasurable experiences rather than acquiring material possessions" is usually made by those that have material possessions toward those that do not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to note that giving £1 to a million third-world people will not necessarily lead to much of an increase in happiness. Look at it this way—if some dead guy you didn't know sent you £10, would it mean much to you? Would the happiness by long-lived or significant in your life? Or would it be a quick happiness if anything? Consider instead that some dead fellow invested £1 million in making a new art museum (or whatever) in your local town, free to the public. A million momentary happinesses are not nearly as long-lasting or significant as an investment that will continue to reap rewards for years and years.

Personally, I would want the money put into something that would be used to generate more revenue over time, e.g. an endowment that would lead towards something more permanent. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the £10 is a particularly great comparison since depending on how poor these people are, it could easily be like someone giving you £100 or even more. I do agree however that donating money to a charity of some sort or setting something up for the long term is a better bet. Nil Einne (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd try maximising the total happiness the million will produce. However if I invest it for a year it will probably gain value and so help more people in the future. This will happen every year so I guess the best idea is to invest it in stocks and never spend it. :) Dmcq (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A million pounds isn't going to make a significant difference to a large number of people's lives. You can either donate to a big charity and let your money, together with lots of other peoples, do some good to a large number of people or you can do something on your own that will benefit a smaller number of people. An endowment to support a new youth centre in your home town, maybe. --Tango (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Or a scholarship. Putting people through a good school may improve their happiness, or at least decrease the possibility that they'll end up really poor. (Try to come up with interesting qualifications for the scholarship. Lot's of scholarships already go to the graduate with the highest GPA.) APL (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Microfinance and its "See also" links.--Wetman (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no one answer, which is one reason why there are so many charities; otherwise, everyone would simply give to the best charity and the rest would wither. However, a charitable contribution will probably do more than outright gifts to increase total happiness, especially considering that small gifts would incur large administrative costs. You may be best-advised to decide what kind of charitable activity you consider adds the most to the world's happiness, then contribute to one or more well-run charities that support that activity. Warren Buffett, for example, pledged a fortune to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, because he supported its goals and considered it to be particularly well-run. If you have trouble deciding on charities, you could simply contribute to the United Way International, or its local equivalent. John M Baker (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If you give it to me, you will make 1 person very happy, and I will share my happiness with 5 people, who will each share it with 5 people and so on. Thus if you give me that money, you will make all the people of the world happier. Googlemeister (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll give you the standard economics answer. Money means the most to those who have the least of it. So, you want to give your money to those who are poorest in the world, and likely to remain poor for some time. Also, you want to avoid giving to charities that take a big cut from your donation for overhead, etc. So, probably, some sort of religous non-profit, dedicated to the poor, who are well known for being honest. Mother Teresa's organization? LK (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Has it become honest now that she's gone? —Tamfang (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

First give 10 bob to Googlemeister for having the right idea. Next bequeath 990,000 to Wikipedia ("well-run" "non-profit" "dedicated to the poor"). Then use the remaining 9,990 to ensure it gets there soon (another positive effect is that you will have no time to have second thoughts about it). Not only will your largesse be used to educate millions of readers on the marvels of the universe (and so make them happy), it will also ensure that others with a million to spare will have a forum to turn to for financial help. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone identify this obscure anti-smoking parody song?

On a New York City radio station, in early 1967 I believe, I heard a humorous upbeat song which I took to be anti-smoking, or at least a parody of smoking.

All I can remember are a few short pieces, as follows:

"You can get killed just as easy by a bus" (i.e. smoke 'em if you got 'em)

"If you watch TV you know, it's the [SOME-thing]* way to go / bringing mentholated puffing joy to us"

• [SOME-thing] refers to some unknown word(s) of two syllables total, I'm guessing it might be "TRES chic" as that would scan and fit the context; also it is an expression unknown to me at the time (hence I would not have understood or remembered it)

I had thought that "mentholated puffing joy" would steer Google to the precise answer, but no such hits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.2.70 (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ten Commandments and Gentiles

inappropriate debate closed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

OP does not appear to want answers to questions, but to debate and condemn. This is not what the ref desk is for --Jayron32 02:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Why do some gentiles believe that the Ten Commandments apply to them? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Your question was answered here and in the Ten Commandments article. What additional information are you after? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

While it's good you started a seperate discussion rather then continouing it there I concur that it'll be better if you specify in more detail what you're still uncertain about. Is your question more about why Christians believe the Ten Commandments apply to them but don't generally follow other Jewish/old testament laws even if they accept the entire Old Testament as God's word? If so then I don't have much more to add then what I've already said, i.e. it is their belief most of the laws were superceeded by Jesus and his apostles but perhaps others can clarify more. BTW, the superceeded part is perhaps key, AFAIK Christians generally believe that God sent Jesus his son as the Messiah to save all his people and when Jesus came the distinction between gentiles/Jewish came to an end and all his people should take up this new understanding of the faith (overly simplistic but gives the general idea). There are some parallels in the Islamic faith although things there are also a bit different (obviously they don't believe Jesus was a messiah but a prophet in the vein of Moses etc) e.g. they consider the Tanakh/Old Testament and New Testament corrupted and so the Quran is the only perfect word of God. Also as mentioned in our Ten Commandments article, Muslims do not believe the Sabbath ever applied to them although the Friday prayers have taken their importance. Islamic beliefs does parallel Judaism in a number of ways distinct, e.g. they have similar dietary laws that Christianity lack. However the difference also makes it simpler since for Muslims the Hadith and teachings of others help them to understand what God wants them to do but the earlier texts even though they were the word of God are mostly unimportant. P.S. If you haven't already I strongly suggest you read the articles I linked earlier, particularly Ten Commandments, Biblical law in Christianity and perhaps Old Testament. Nil Einne (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The simple way to put it is that Christians view Christ as "changing the rules" for everyone. Christ represents a new covenant, whereby the "Nation of God" status formerly afforded to only Jews is now extended to those who believe in Christ. See Matthew 10:33, also John 3:16 & John 3:36, and especially John 14:6. Christ represented a fulfillment of the covenents laid out in the Hebrew scriptures, especially Isaiah, and a new covenant offered freely to all humans who would be willing to accept its terms. --Jayron32 00:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I was not asking about Christian doctrine as much as I was asking how the Christian doctrine could be defended in the face of Judaism. Reading Wikipedia articles is great, but I won't find my answer there because Wikipedia, as with most sources, takes a pluralistic approach in that "Jews say what they say" and it's right for them, and "Christians say what they say" and its right for them. Judaism and Christianity are mutually exclusive faiths (the Athanasian Creed specifically demands belief in Jesus and promises condemnation in return for failure to comply, while Judaism specifically demands that Jews not believe in Jesus and condemns those who do otherwise) -- and so a pluralistic approach not only fails to respond to my question, it actually undermines both religions, because it takes it all too lightly, basically considering it all falsehood. I just want to know what Christians view as their support for the Ten Commandments being applicable to them. To say that "Jesus said so" is insufficient evidence because Judaism maintains that Jesus was a false prophet. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

And in regards to Isaiah, I'd hardly call an out-of-context mistranslation and a completely ambiguous non-specific suffering reference grounds for believing in Jesus. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You must know that you are now well into troll territory. Given that Christians do not regulate themselves by whatever Judaism maintains, the Jewish view of Jesus has absolutely no moment in the Christian considerations. And so the answer to your question has been well supplied by Jayron32, who cites the relevant new testament coverage of the matter. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Am I really not allowed to ask a comparative religion question? I live in an insular community and thought I'd use this humanities reference desk, to where questions on religion are to be forwarded, to seek information from non-Jews. Is that being disruptive? This is not being done to inflame or invite conflict -- if it does anyway, am I liable? Is it that I am seeking obvious responses? I don't think so, but if other disagree I suppose I'll have to find another forum to answer this question. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Except you aren't asking for a comparison; you aren't asking "what are the different ways that Christians and Jews view their relationship to the Ten Commandments". What you seem to be repeatedly asking is "By what right do Christians have to claim an adherance to the Ten Commandments"; which is more of a rhetorical condemnation than an actual question for comparison. Furthermore, your question below is a loaded question. You presuppose that Chistians are self-deluded into believing something which is demonstratably false; that in itself makes your questions unanswerable. --Jayron32 02:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

OK...I'll accept that criticism. But that was the way in which it was presented to me, so I was merely quoting from my source that raised this question in my head. I'm doing my utmost to maintain a very civil tone and I expect the same from everyone else. If we are all remain off the offense, is there any tension here? But as Judaism preceded Christianity, I feel the question does remain "what right" do Christians have in hi-jacking anything from Judaism. Is is no different than you and I beginning our own program to profess our modified views of something that has been maintained for centuries by another, and claiming that it supersedes the original? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

To answer your initial question by itself, you may wish to read Biblical law in Christianity, which discusses and links to further detail on whether all, some, or none of it is applicable. You later claim you'll find no answers in our articles, as to "how the Christian doctrine could be defended in the face of Judaism", before calling them "mutually exclusive" - if the latter is indeed the case, then there is no need to defend one against the other, as believers in one will necessarily reject the other. Judaism can maintain whatever it likes, but that will have no bearing on Christians, or indeed anyone else who doesn't follow (that particular strain of) Judaism. --Saalstin (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

But when the evidence mounts against claims of Jesus' authenticity, what would a Christian respond? I suppose that is my fundamental question. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, Christians believe Jesus was the Messiah, and Jews do not. Religion cannot be "proved" or "disproved", because if it could, there would be no debate about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What about revelation? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What about respecting the admonition at the top of this page"Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead." --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Christianity regards itself as the "fulfillment" of Judaism. The OP's question is a bit of a red herring, in that all "true" Christians believe the Ten Commandments apply to them. The interesting bit is where someone tried to trap Jesus by asking him which was the "greatest" Commandment, and his answer was that the greatest Commandment was to love God, and the second greatest was to love Humankind. (Paraphrasing a bit.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

How can Christianity claim to be "fulfilled Judaism" when Jesus is a false prophet according to Old Testament standards. Before he can be recognized, he has already been condemned as violating Deuteronomy 13 in "drawing you away from what the Lord your God has commanded you" -- if Jesus comes to change laws, is he not a false prophet? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, we're done here. This is the reference desk, not a debating platform. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bad person, who is a "Bad person"

I mean, is there any definition for "bad people". Or... is it all relative? Hope you understand my poor English, Thank you. --190.50.122.182 (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's all relative. One man's "bad person" could be another man's saint. Marco polo (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There are some objective things one could say about evil; people who hurt others for the act of hurting them in-and-of-itself, or who act in reckless disregard for others, could be considered at some level to be "bad". There are some grey areas in the middle; would it be evil to hurt someone who was themselves evil? However, intentional or reckless harm brought to innocent people is generally seen as bad in all possible definitions. --Jayron32 23:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I won't argue with Jayron on that. However, simply because one person calls another person a "bad person", we can't assume that the person labeled "bad" is unequivocally evil. For example, people often label others as "bad" simply because they have different political, religious, sexual, or aesthetic preferences, even if they do nothing to hurt others. Marco polo (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on someone's perspective on God. If one believes in God, he believes in absolute truth, and therefore absolute good and evil. If one does not believe in God, one does not believe in absolute truth, and therefore there'd be no definition of good or evil with which another cannot come along and disagree. Bertrand Russel (an atheist) was quoted as saying that the one thing he found most difficult with his atheistic perspective was that the worst thing he could say about the Nazis was that he didn't like them. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You could equally say that there's nothing that another religion cannot come along and disagree. I'm sorry to say that I find your answer little more than an assertion that morality flows from religion, something many would disagree with. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not assert that morality flows from religion but from God. Otherwise, there is only relative truth, because who are you to disagree with me and who am I to disagree with you. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Morality flows from the need to maintain order in society, for the sake of survival. The notion that morality "flows from God" was a later invention. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually you seem to be saying that objective reality depends on the existence of God, which is just bizarre given His conspicuous lack of it. 81.131.51.80 (talk) 03:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the argument could be made that only an atheist is in a position to be a good person, since the theist's 'goodness' can be understood as mere self-serving submission to the rules imposed by the deity, an attempt to garner profit or avoid punishment; whereas an atheist can do good only for its own sake. LANTZY^TALK 01:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

We are all sinners, only some are worse sinners than others. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, please: I am not a sinner, and there are hundreds of thousands out here in real life who would take strong issue with your opinion. It may even be construed as offensive to make such a statement without qualifying it in accordance with some known set of beliefs. // BL \\ (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Standard Christian teaching is that we are all sinners, all imperfect beings. Meanwhile, this is turning into the type of debate that got the previous section closed. I think Marco Polo's answer was quite sufficient given the vagueness of the question. There are those who think Hitler was good and there are those who think Mother Theresa was evil. It's an endless debate. And the reference desk is about trying to answer factual questions, not about fomenting endless debates. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no absolute definition. Peoples definitions change - it is subjective.83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not use "Standard Christian Teaching" to describe people who are not Christian as "sinners". Thanks. APL (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Jayron, wherever you are, how about closing this one also? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, do it. With all respect to believers' feelings, it seems hopeless trying to explain to some of them such a trivial fact, that believing in God does not make their believings more absolute. If I believe in God, my truth is only absolute to me, that is, it is a relative truth again. Example: what if I tell you that God gave me your bike as a gift? --pma (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to close the question - all I see is a general failure to address or fully answer the question. The questioner didn't even mention religion by the way.83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed a key difference between this question and the previous one is that we haven't seen any evidence the OP is trying to start a debate which was the perception I think a number of people had of the previous thread. As in all threads, if other editors get carried away (and this includes me) they should be encouraged to stop rather then the thread closed. While this is a bit of an odd question, I don't think it's inherently unanswerably on the RD and some of the answers have already partially answered the question. Nil Einne (talk)

The meaning of "bad person" is both subjective and relative. The fundamental issue is that there is no universally agreed-upon criteria for what acts and intents are good or evil. The article on morality, and its linked articles, provides a starting discussion of these issues. Religion is one source of morality, but far from the only one. Even once a determination has been reached as to whether an act or intent is bad, it is still a relative determination as to whether the actor is overall a bad person or not. John M Baker (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example for you: Dennis Miller, in one of his monologues from 15 years ago or so, addressing Mr. Simpson as if he were watching the show: "You're a BAD MAN, O.J.!" I hope that helps answer the question. Now, can we close this pointless section? The question has been answered at least twice - that it's relative. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's relative. Neither does Mordechai Becher, and neither did Maimonidies. It may very well be time to end, but this is not an article and we mustn't reach a consensus to offer the OP. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad people put too much pepper on their pizza. Bus stop (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No, the bad people are the ones who put fungus on it. Googlemeister (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed -- the taste of chitin ruins everything. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Selmer Bringsjord has been working on computerizing evil, if that's of any interest.[1] 70.90.174.101 (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)