Humanities desk
< November 18	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 20 >

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.

November 19

Is there a religion like this?

I've been thinking lately about how it isn't that likely that a heaven/hell/God can exist in our universe since it is a materialistic one, but has there been a religion of some sort that states that there's another universe, possibly a spiritual universe, in which people go to when they die in our universe ? A sort of heaven? Any help would be greatly appreciated. 174.93.63.116 (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A sort of heaven? How about heaven? The usual (e.g. Christian) concept of heaven is exactly as you describe. I assume you don't mean this, so perhaps you could clarify how what you're saying is different. Staecker (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most religions rely on a magical interpretation of reality, with the spiritual and material as separate, where things like the material nature of existence dont get in the way. I dont recall any that specifically talk of "other universes", but many have cycles where the universe is destroyed and another born out of its destruction. See Maya religion#World endings and beginnings(Fifth World (Native American mythology)) and Ragnarök, as well as the above mentioned Heaven. He iro 03:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're describing modern understanding of many religions, including Christianity. It's been centuries since (most) Christians believed that hell was literally down in the ground, and heaven was literally just above the firmament. APL (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Gnosticism the material world is not created by God but a demiurge, who is often presented as evil and malicious. The spiritual world is separate and under God's domain. It seems to fit the OP's definition closely. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many strands of Christianity hold to a version of Cartesian dualism which holds that mind (or soul) and matter are separate, being united in a human being, but God, angels, etc, are only mind and the earth is only matter. Hence heaven is purely mind and non-material. (Since many people understand the non-material world to not have material properties like extension, location, etc, it's a bit inaccurate to speak of heaven as a place.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some strands. The Catholics and Orthodox (and associated groups) have condemned dualism as a form of Gnosticism for centuries. It's tied up with the resurrection of the body. The belief as you describe it would deny the resurrection of the body, break with the Nicene Creed, and generally be condemned as heresy by historical Christianity. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not heresy to St Paul! (1Cor15:44 "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.") Also "For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven" (Mark 12:25). I've never understood the church's interpretation of that bit of the Nicene creed. Dbfirs 08:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that's because you are assuming a particular dualistic interpretation of those words. The belief in the resurrection of the body is clearly ancient, and you can find Christian writing from the first few centuries on it. To say that the Glorified body is a spiritual body, and that marriage and such Earthly concerns do not exist in Heaven, is not equivalent to saying that our bodies are disposable gloves for our souls. Paul doesn't say "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a non-material soul": the Glorified body is considered to be a glorified, spiritual version of our non-glorified Earthly bodies, raised on the last day and united with our souls for all eternity. Again, this only seems a contradiction if you assume 'spiritual' is the opposite of 'material', which is a specifically dualistic view. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you mean, but I've always assumed that "the resurrection of this earthly body" was just an extreme reaction to the threat of Gnosticism. I see "as the angels which are in heaven" and "spiritual body" as meaning "non-material", but perhaps this is because of Quaker influences in my ancestry, and because I am not very good at believing what I'm told to believe. I certainly don't take the Gnostic view that material is the opposite of and opposed to spiritual, but the traditional picture of physical bodies walking around in heaven just doesn't ring true to me. Apologies for expressing opinions. This is not really the place to do so, but reliable factual sources are difficult to find. Dbfirs 13:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I get what you mean, and the traditional Christian view, while teaching that we will be resurrected body and soul at the end, doesn't really say that Heaven will be like the fluffy-cloud Heaven in cartoons, with people walking about. Heaven is, clearly, a very different situation to Earth, being in God's presence. It helps to consider what happened when Jesus rose from the dead: the tomb was empty, because he had risen body and soul; he walked around, solid, and ate, Thomas could touch his wounds, because he had a solid body (he was not a ghost); he didn't quite look the same (the disciples didn't initially recognise him); he entered and exited locked rooms. When he ascended into Heaven, he ascended body and soul together: Jesus entered Heaven body and soul. Since Jesus is the 'first fruits', and we (that is, Catholics and Orthodox and other strands still keeping to these historical beliefs) hope to be raised in the same manner, it follows that we (like him) will be resurrected body and soul, with glorified bodies like he had, and enter Heaven complete. If I recall from the last time I investigated, the belief in immediate (particular) judgement at death, and spending time in Heaven or Hell as a bodyless soul before the Final Judgement when we're reunited with our bodies, is actually a slightly later belief than resurrection of the body, which is core and ancient. 86.163.1.168 (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French in the Leeward Islands (Society Islands)

How did the French manage to gain control of the Leeward Society Islands: Bora Bora, Huahine, and Raiatea? Were there any arm resistance against the French takeover? I heard there was an arm resistance but I'm not sure. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit of info in this book, Empire of love: histories of France and the Pacific, pp. 97-102 or so. Mentions the "Leewards War", which might be a useful term to search on. Looks like there was decades of fierce armed resistance, at least on Raiatea. Pfly (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There was a "massacre of French forces on Huahine"! Does anybody know the number of French who were killed or wounded in these conflicts?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is remarkable that the French Wikipedia article on the island [1] contains almost no historical information. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporating a company under a different name (not fraudulently, just to go by it)

We can not offer opinions on what is or is not legal.

So I have a really stupid name, imagine Gaylord Dickwad, and I'm close to incorporating a company and doing business by it. I'm just going to adopt a more normal-sounding name "John Smith" or whatever. This isn't fraudulent, I just don't want to go by my stupid given name. Do you think I can incorporate the company using a different name, just for pr purposes and to keep contacts under it. I don't want to go through the entire "legally change my name" process as I don't mind my name with my family and am quite attached to it - it's just a stupid name to use as a businessman. thanks for any thoughts you might have on this matter. I'm not asking for legal advice here and will ignore any legal advice I do receive.P.s. I already know I can use another name in correspondence and publicly, etc (as long as it's not fraudulent) - the question is if I can also use it on the articles of incorporation 82.234.207.120 (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, this is a legal question, and we dont give legal advice. Ask an attorney, it would suck if we told you to do it and you got into trouble. But then you could always go by the Apple, IBM, Fox Broadcasing method, etc. Why do you assume the name of your company should be your given name? He iro 03:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just don't want Gaylord Dickwad to be on the articles of incorporation, you know? Like, an investor asks for it later, and sees a different name from the one I personally use with him... still, I don't want to go through the whole legal process... I'm not asking for legal advice. I would obviously get that from a lawyer. Just curious about your thoughts. Also, I do realize your answer is very different if it's a case of fraud. Not doing anything fraudulent here and it's not a secret what my name really is or anything, more a matter of perception.82.234.207.120 (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is pretty much a straight-up legal advice question. The informational response that I can give is that whenever starting a company or starting a bank account or anything like that, you always sign a short statement at the bottom affirming that everything you've filled in in the forms is true, and it would not be true if your name isn't John Smith but you wrote John Smith. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding the legal question, in some jurisdictions (e.g. the UK) it is straightforward to change your name legally; this would be something to consider if you regard your name as "really stupid". Warofdreams talk 19:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most girlfriends

Which man was able to attract most number of girlfriends in history? Is it Wilt Chamberlain? --Woiuioj (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably no real answer to this. The real answer is probably some king or prince or tribal warlord lost to history.

However, for the sake of fun, I'll mention Hugh Hefner, who must certainly be in the running. APL (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define a girlfriend? Most people wouldn't consider Chamberlain's alleged one-night (or fraction thereof) stands as such. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about girlfriends... but early Mormon leader Brigham Young apparently had a total of 56 wives! see: List of Brigham Young's wives for details. Blueboar (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources say Warren Jeffs of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints had or has up to 86 wives [2]. He iro 04:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giacomo Casanova must surely rate a mention. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to that ever-reliable source, Wikipedia, Casanova "mentions over 120 adventures with women and girls" in his writings. While Casanova is famous for promiscuity, this number is surprisingly small for so large a reputation. Surely a great many people have had this many lovers in a lifetime? — O'Dea (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the term "girlfriends" implies a certain level of at least temporal commitment. If you just mean sex partners, then... Kafka Liz (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Bega? By the way, there seems to be a steady niche market for literature giving advice on "Ways to Juggle Girlfriends", "Juggling women, also known as DMW (dating multiple women)" etc... -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say some rock god such as Mick Jagger, Brian Jones, Jimmy Page, Steven Tyler or if his own claims are true: Gene Simmons of KISS.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lemmy may have had more than Gene Simmons, though he's usually circumspect about it when asked directly, at least in interviews I have seen. The Wikipedia article at Lemmy#.27Sex_Legend.27 sites numbers ranging from 1200-2000. --Jayron32 22:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, now I know why he named his group "Motorhead".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)--[reply]

Perhaps a better question is, "who has had the most children in history?" I forget his name, but there was some sultan with over 800 children. He has an article here on wikipedia somewhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.95.143 (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail Ibn Sharif? Gabbe (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "perhaps a better question" routine is such a politician's gambit. The question posed was not "who has had the most children in history?" — O'Dea (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt at the Tarpon Inn, Port Aransas, TX

In your article about Port Aransas, TX, it states that Franking Roosevelt stayed at the Tarpon Inn in 1937. Not true. He never left the Presidential yacht and never put foot in Port Aransas. He was in Port Aransas for a fishing trip and the guides picked him up daily from the yacht, went fishing and returned him to the yacht. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.108.234.53 (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The published reference given for the statement in the article is the Tarpon Inn's own website, which states:

"The Tarpon Inn was made famous by the likes of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Hedy Lamarr and Duncan Hines, who all used the Tarpon Inn, as their island retreat while big game fishing in the surrounding waters."

Firstly, there is some ambiguity in that statement - it could cover Roosevelt using the facilities at the Inn (guides, food and drink supplies, jetty or moorings, etc) while not actually setting foot in it. Secondly, it's true that the Inn's own publicity is not an entirely disinterested and therefore "reliable" source, but it's better than nothing. To justify modifying the statement about Roosevelt, we would ideally need another published, more reliable source confirming what you say. Incidentally, the Inn's website can't be the only source for the article's text at that point, as that mentions additional personages not included on the website.

Unfortunately, people often make unfounded claims, so we can't just take the word of an anonymous poster without corroboration. Please tell us how you know about Roosevelt's movements 74 years ago - your own eyewitness (and did you keep him under observation 24/7) or other people's stories (did they)? - if so we can't weigh them above something published and hopefully checked at the time of its publication. If however you can refer us to newspaper accounts of the period, or a book about (for example) Roosevelt or the history of the Port or the Inn or the Yacht, or other such researched sources that state Roosevelt didn't enter the Inn, we can.

Incidentally, the best place to bring this up would have been on the 'Discussion' page of the article itself. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.55 (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only bring this up because the nature of the discussion is relevant to the mission of the reference desk— you're right that the Tarpon Inn's website is not a reliable source, but I disagree that it is better than nothing. Sources don't get first-mover advantage on Wikipedia. I agree that to modify the statement, a source should be given, but the claim can also be removed altogether and doing so would be entirely within policy, especially considering that the claim has been challenged. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't particularly quarrel with the claim being removed, but I'd first like to have seen a little more detail and ideally a reference from the OP challenger to explain the basis for their bald assertion. Also, as I said above, the current actual wording in the article (and for that matter, on the website) covers the possibility that the Yacht utilised the services of the Inn without FDR himself necessarily going ashore, which given his effective confinement to a wheelchair and the consequent difficulties involved would have been quite understandable.

I think the OP is over-interpreting the wording by thinking it necessarily means he actually entered/slept in/whatever the Inn. I am of course assuming no argument with the Yacht having visited the vicinity on one (or more) of FDR's game fishing trips in it, which are attested elsewhere, but it might be that a biography or other such reference details all of those trips and excludes such a visit.

If this discussion were copied to the article's discussion page (as I shall shortly do) perhaps one of its past editors or someone else with interest in these matters (I myself live on a different continent and had never heard of Port Aransas before now) will be motivated to track down relevant information. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.12 (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about artwork

Croatian watercolor painter ca. 1920-1940, not on your list of 19-20th century, as far as I can tell, collected by US foreign service person Mary Richmond. Image is 8 x 10 1/2" of a church with a 2" mat drawn around it. Bottom left on mat is, in pencil, printed name (of church?)- looks like TTapos - Eauzovzarvudiovj (hard to decipher because I do not know Croatian alphabet and artist's rendering) vowels may be a, u, o interchanged. Right bottom on image is signature Anth BIL or AnxwBil or AnfwBil. I assume Croatian because of the TTapos. Is there anyway you can help me decipher these names or send me to someone who can72.161.127.43 (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you upload a picture, or pictures, of it? It would probably help us identify the writing, at least. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any languages where a name might start with 'T T' Are you sure it's not Greek script "Παρος" = Paros? But I can't make out the other word to be Greek (or anything else). --ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you're right about the alphabet's being Greek and about TTapos = Πάρος, and allowing for some transcription errors (such as misreading nu as v and lambda as d), it just might be Εκατονταπυλιανή. 72.161.127.43, does the church in the painting look anything like the one in the images here and here? Deor (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no Croatian alphabet, as the "normal" Latin / Roman letters are used. Anth (etc) may be Ante, the Croat equivalent of Anthony. --Incognito.ergo.possum (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Also bear in mind, that the Croatian painter may have used a script like Kurrent (if he attended a school in the Austro-Hungarian empire around the turn of the century). Some of the letters of this script are cryptic squiggles if you read them as modern glyphs. --Incognito.ergo.possum (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm puzzling why you think it is Croatian - you say "because of the TTapos", but I don't know what you mean. --ColinFine (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]