Humanities desk
< March 31	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 2 >

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.

April 1

Biblical figures whose existence is confirmed by contemporary non-Biblical sources

It's Palm Sunday today (and April Fools' Day), and as Christian, I have to go and remember Jesus' great sacrifice. However, I have long wondered who among the Biblical figures (like Solomon, David and Joseph) have been confirmed to exist by contemporary extra-Biblical sources. I think that there is some evidence for Solomon, controversial evidence for David, and a theory that Joseph is either based on or is actually the Egyptian politician Imhotep. I also read somewhere that recently, evidence for the existence of Pontius Pilate was discovered. But what about the other biblical figures, both from the Old Testament and the New Testament? Are there any people from the Bible whose contemporary records, if any, have survived? I'm not saying that those without evidence do not exist, but I'm wondering who among the Biblical figures were mentioned in contemporary non-Biblical sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Joseph = Imhotep theory seems to me dubious, given that – insofar as we can attribute dates – Imhotep flourished something approaching a millennium before Joseph plausibly might have, which in turn was over half a millennium before the likely literary origin of the Story of Joseph. However, that Joseph was some other real Egyptian official of Hebrew origin seems plausible (unless the story has no historical basis at all, which is also quite possible). I am minded to delve into this further, so thanks for the spur. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.103 (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One classic hypothesis which has been debated and redebated since Josephus is that the Biblical Joseph was in some way connected to the Hyksos... AnonMoos (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Mesha Stele, a Moabite text that refers to Omri. The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III is one of multiple Assyrian sources for Jehu. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure most of the Herodian dynasty directly mentioned in the New Testament are directly attested by many sources. Several members are charcters in the Gospel narratives. Pope Clement I also wrote about Paul and Peter and is an extrabiblical source contemporary to some of the bible writing. --Jayron32 02:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some people such as Belshazzar and Merodach-Baladan who were only known from the Bible until inscriptional discoveries were made in the 19th century. Omri seems to have been the Israelite of pre-Maccabean times who made the largest impression on non-Israelites, to judge from surviving records (the northern kingdom of Israel was sometimes known to Mesopotamians as bit-ḫumri or "House of Omri"). David and Solomon kind of fall into a gap, because the only reason why the United Israelite Kingdom could exist and expand was that both Egypt and Mesopotamia were rather weak and uninvolved with Canaan during that historical period; however, "House of David" appears on the Tel Dan stele... AnonMoos (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Pilate Stone, discovered in 1961 in Caesarea Maritima, indicates that Pilate was an actual prefect of the Roman province of Judea. Astronaut (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This would actually be a good idea for an article. There actually are very few people with genuinely contemporaneous evidence, since there is very little surviving evidence of any kind from the Old Testament period, while the New Testament mostly addresses people that mainstream writers considered peripheral and unimportant. But there is evidence of at least some figures from the Old Testament, including Jeconiah, Nebuchadnezzar II, and Cyrus the Great. From the New Testament, there is Caesar Augustus (who is mentioned in passing), as well as the previously mentioned Pilate, Herod the Great, and Herod Antipas. John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth are both mentioned in Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews, but that was written more than half a century later and is not strictly contemporaneous. (One of the references to Jesus is probably spurious, but there is no reason to doubt the other.) I wouldn't count conjectural evidence, such as the suggested association of characters from the Pentateuch with possibly analogous figures in Egyptian history. John M Baker (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually a Wikipedia article about exactly this question: List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources. -- Lindert (talk) 07:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHAAOE! Thanks for the article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks from the workers over at List of historical opera characters for providing more grist for their mill. I've let them know. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should we kill all humans to save the Earth's ecosystem?

I'm asking this question to all non-human participants here.

My analysis of the situation on Earth is as follows. Humans are destroying the environment. They've known about the damage they are doing for many decades, yet they are continuing on the same line. So, it seems to me that the only way to save the planets lifeforms is to kill all humans. If we don't intervene, the ecosystem will be wrecked and all humans will die anyway. If we kill all humans, the ecosystem will be saved. Count Iblis (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this supposed to be an April Fool's joke or not? If serious, I'll try to answer it. Actually, if we changed our own lifestyle (as a species), we can save the ecosystem without killing ourselves. If we stop using fossil fuels and start using clean energy, the effects will be similar to if we left the Earth. Of course, if we killed ourselves, then New York City will become a literal urban jungle. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Humans are a part of the ecosystem... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

In my opinion, if all human targets were terminated, then the topic would be muut. Since concern for the ecosystem is a human principle, there would be no concern, should all human targets be terminated. In short, if all humans were killed, no one would care enough to give a hoot. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's someone who beat the OP to the punch. See Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. --Jayron32 03:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VHEMT advocates not having kids. OP is asking for the slaughter of human beings. One is voluntary and peaceful, while the other one is kinda bloody. There's definitely prior art out there though, that I can agree. 99.245.35.136 (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep them alive until the zoo ships arrive from the homeworld. 71.215.74.243 (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Count Iblis, you do realise that someone whose sense of humour/humor has been removed will now be looking to block you for making death threats. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a funny joke. So stereotypical for an american, to take offense at the most benign and least of things said. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite figure out wher you hail from, but it's still a true observation in general. Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the question at face value, and expanding on Plasmic Physics' reply: it is absolutely false to say that humans are destroying the environment (or the planet, another fatuous claim that is often made). It is almost certainly true that human activity is causing huge changes to the global ecosystem, which might bring about the extinction of many species, possibly including humans. It is a peculiarly human bit of hubris - or perhaps solipsism - to identify "the planet" or "the environment" with "the world as we know it". But the K/T event was not only a huge change in the global ecosystem (without any human contribution!) but arguably was one of the factors which ultimately led to the appearance of humans. --ColinFine (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this makes Bender, who on occasions expressed the desire to "kill all humans", the ultimate ecologist? Astronaut (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case someone would care, but I am almost certain that he doesn't appreciate the effects on the ecosystem. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never knew we had so many non-human editors here (see OP's first sentence). I'm still waiting for User:RjwilmsiBot, User:MiszaBot II and User:RFC bot to reply so that we have a more balanced discussion. Happy Palm Sunday (Gregorian Calendar). —— Shakescene (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The changes in the environment caused by humans are not bad for all life. In fact, a warmer planet should, overall, be beneficial to most life forms, and might lead to a new round of evolution (if it last long enough), as plants and animals adapt. StuRat (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any human who supports the extinction of humanity is totally free to do himself in. He has no right to do others in, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that it is illegal to commit suicide. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It usually is. But you're still free to do it. What are they going to do? Arrest your corpse? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal where? It's not in parts of Australia, most/all? of the UK, most of the US, Ireland and possibly India, see Suicide legislation. Note that not all countries with laws against attempting suicide have laws against committing suicide, perhaps recognising the futility of such laws. Nil Einne (talk) 03:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've wondered about that. Can you get charged with attempted suicide, just like attempted robbery? Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You used to be charged in the UK, but this was changed by the Suicide Act 1961, the first section of which says: "The rule of law whereby it is a crime for a person to commit suicide is hereby abrogated." Alansplodge (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the crime of attempted suicide should be punishable by the death penalty. :-) StuRat (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

No, that's terribly harsh, Stu. Not even the USA executes people for merely attempting to murder someone; the penalty applies only if they succeed. The same rule should apply to suicide. And habitual offenders .... wait .... -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

This is the exact point of the plot of last week's and this week's episodes of the US TV show Body of Proof. A terrorist is out to destroy the entire human population by injecting himself with a disease, then spreading it to random individuals. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the answers. We were about to unleash a disease similar to cocoliztli. Such a disease would have killed so many people so fast, that it would have led to the collapse of modern civilization. No cure could have been found in time to stop this. But we've put this on hold pending further deliberations on the problems on Earth. Only two members of the galactic security council objected to this intervention, but they do have veto power. The two holdouts have agreed to a plan that will give you more time to solve the problems with the environment. But if this fails, the original plan will be back on the agenda. Count Iblis (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The perfect response to your original question would have been for a bot operator to reply while logged in as the bot :-) Nyttend (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there still OLD people in OLD pictures?

I THOUGHT EVERYONE WAS YOUNGER IN THOSE DAYS!

I look at pictures made MANY DECADES AGO, and there are STILL, OLD PEOPLE IN THEM?

Whatever happened to EVERYONE BEING YOUNGER decades ago? Why were some people STILL OLD in, say, a picture made in 1990, if everybody was supposedly 22 years younger then?

This is a photo of two old people... IN 1990! <-- See that? Why don't they look younger if everyone was 22 years younger that year??? Something is obviously wrong here. *shakes head* --Tergigress (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should see them now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Living is younger than dead. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an April Fool's question? --TammyMoet (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Pope German? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, see Donn Pall. Frankly I'm surprised you had to ask given your personal interest and nickname. Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, is the Pope a Catholic? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely not, Catholics as a rule don't seem to generally take to the modern day street preacher concept although there are a few [1] so it can't be ruled out in the absence of more information (and there's no way I'm going to watch TV wrestling to find out). Nil Einne (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

travel routes and times

So, how would one get from England to Joplin, Missouri? And about how long would it take to get there. I hear there's no trains in the state and it's a long bus ride from the airport.

148.197.81.179 (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

England the country, or is there a place called England in the USA? If it's the country, then one way or another you'll end up in Jefferson City, a drive to Joplin according to Google Earth could take 3 hour and 47 minutes. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was told Kansas city airport, is that any closer? 148.197.81.179 (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines offer flights from London Heathrow (LHR) to Joplin Regional Airport (JLN) via Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW). For flights later this month, prices are £315 or more one way and, for example, a 11:45 departure can get you to Joplin by 20:50, later the same day, with 4 hours hanging around at DFW. Joplin airport is 6 miles north of downtown. I'm sure there are at least taxis ~~and likely a bus route~~ but no bus as far as I can tell. Astronaut (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A drive from Kansas City Airport to Joplin according to Google Earth could take 2 hours and 40 minutes. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Travel my way, on the highway that's the best .... You go through Saint Louis; Joplin, Missouri; and Oklahoma City looks mighty pretty.... —— Shakescene (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to Google Earth it's about 297 mi (478 km) from England to Joplin, Missouri and takes about 4hrs 45mins. Unless it's the small village in Nordstrand, Germany in which case GE can't figure it out. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The person asking the question doesn't mention the possibility of driving so probably can't or won't drive himself or herself. I can't find any scheduled bus service from Kansas City Airport to Joplin, though there are shuttle services (shared taxis) that you can arrange, but they are probably somewhat pricey and time-consuming. It doesn't make sense to go through Jefferson City, as its airport is no better served (and no cheaper to fly through) than Joplin's own airport. You might look into prices for flights to Kansas City (MCI). There might not be many direct flights there from the UK, but you can easily connect from most major US airports to Kansas City. Then find out the price of an airport shuttle from Kansas City to Joplin and keep in mind the time required for that transfer. Finally, find out the price of flying directly from the UK to Joplin, which might involve two changes of plane. It might be faster and not much more expensive to fly there directly than to fly to Kansas City and take a shuttle. Joplin does not have any scheduled bus routes that serve its airport. It has an on-demand minibus service, but it is apparently available only to city residents. So you would have to take a taxi from the airport into town. Marco polo (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, a good website for researching flights is Hipmunk, though that should not be viewed as an endorsement by Wikipedia! Marco polo (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to American Airlines, I see they also offer flights to Kansas City (MCI). The prices are much the same as flights to Joplin, but you would have the additional expense and travel time to get from MCI to Joplin. There are however, more flights from DFW and American also offer a different routing via Chicago O'Hare (ORD) to MCI. Kansas City is also served by many more airlines, so there are even more options on routing and pricing. Astronaut (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport (XNA) is much closer than any of those already mentioned. Only 77 mi. or 90 minutes by car. Several airlines have flights there from London with a single stopover in an American hub airport. For example, you can fly United out of Heathrow at 9:30am and arrive at XNA at 5:47pm with a 2hr, 50 min. layover in Houston (all times local).

Joplin has its own commercial airport: Joplin Regional Airport with infrequent service to Dallas/Fort Worth. D Monack (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cost Overheads

What is meant by cost overheads while calculating the total production cost of a product? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.242.184.58 (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A simple answer is here. Let us know if you need more detail. Alansplodge (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being the owner of yourself

Is there a reason to explain why we are the owners of ourselves individually? Besides the tautology: that if it were not so, we could be or have slaves. XPPaul (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Henry David Thoreau wrote Walden which gave the impression that men all men are free. Yet he was fortunate enough, because of his inherited fortune, that he could do and indulge himself in what ever took his fancy. If however, you want to truly own yourself, then approach me for a mortgage (at very favourable rates that my lawyer will ensure that you'll never be able to discharge) to buy your freedom from those that currently own you... Until which time -you remain a slave; and just toiling for whomever will keep you off the bread-line and obeying whatever they decree.</sarcasm off>--Aspro (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the prickly fundamental issues that underlie your questions is the question "what do you mean by ownership?" To take a very real example, think of owning a house or piece of property. Many people that own a house have a mortgage on it. Does the fact that a third party have a financial/legal interest in the property mean that the "owners" of the house don't "own" it? Even if the mortgage is paid off, they're likely to own the home through fee simple (or local equivalent). Does that count as "ownership"? Could they even "own" the land if they had allodial title, given that any strongman with enough hired muscle could force them off it? What does it mean to "own" something? - In a certain sense, you *don't* own your self. Looked at a certain way, part of ownership is the right to transfer/sell such ownership to another party. In most modern countries, you're legally prohibited from selling yourself into slavery, so can you truly be said to "own" yourself? Of course, that means no one else can own you either. That's my understanding of most modern legal conceptions - people are things which cannot be owned, either by themselves or by others. Not everything has (or has to have) an owner. (e.g. who owns the sun?) - That's all for slavery-like legal owning, though. If you're talking "owning oneself" along the lines of "I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.", that's a different animal all together. -- 67.40.209.83 (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Truth to tell, everyone is ultimately "owned" by Mother Nature. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing discussion, irrelevant to my question:

Extended content

Christians would argue this assertion. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what you would like to do on this earth, you are restricted by your mortality, as well as other factors. Although the Bible says that humans have dominion over the earth, it is actually microbes that have dominion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I'm talking about. The Bible says that our lives were purchased with inocent blood, and that a Christian's body is not their own, but the Lord's. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christians believe they are far more than just a mortal body. Their essential being is an immortal spirit or soul; their body is is just the spirit's temporary house while on Earth. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that squares with conservative Christianity. I don't recall the OP saying anything about Christianity or anything otherwise religious. His question seemed secular. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not quite the orthodox Christian position on the body and soul: see Resurrection of the Body. Christianity has generally (but not universally) rejected Cartesian dualism. 86.161.110.210 (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, an immortal soul is not a Christian doctrine, it is not supported anywhere in the Bible. It is a concept inducted into Christianity from other religions and beliefs. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, because the Gospel of Matthew has nothing to do with Christianity, to whit, Matthew 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." It is kinda hard to have eternal life which is not immortal. --Jayron32 01:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I meant. I mean the assumption that the soul is inherently immortal, and that no conditions or terms are requisite to obtaining this right. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is the reason why it is called a testament or a covenant. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, because all of those people who aren't accepting of the covenant who the Gospel of Matthew assigns to "eternal punsihment". There isn't any mention of a third group of people who get to escape eternity. --Jayron32 01:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, there is no possible self-destruction in Christianity? You could "suicide the body", but not the soul? 186.206.247.208 (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not to say the body is unimportant, or can be dispensed with at will. It is a part of the overall person, and a part that should be looked after and respected, but not the essential part. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that you know what "eternal punishment" means? It does not mean unending punishment. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I know what eternal means, as in perpetual, ceaseless, lasting forever. Unless you know of some other meaning of eternal. --Jayron32 02:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is written: "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." and "This is the second death."

If the punishment is unending, then there can be no second death. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal also means: non-reversable, non-repeated, final. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear this up, Plasmic Physics is maintaining the Adventist position on the soul and the afterlife, which is why is differs so radically from the view that Christians are used to seeing. When Plasma Physics says "Christian", they mean "Seventh Day Adventist", as all other groups are considered to have been corrupted by Pagan beliefs. Hence "is not a Christian belief" really means "is not a Seventh Day Adventist belief". Why this also mesns an attempt to redefine the word "eternal", without even a link to a phrase from an obscure out-of-print dictionary, I leave to the reader's imagination. I hope this clears up the otherwise baffling disagreement. 86.161.110.210 (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, perpetual punishment by burning is against the character of God - it is not an act of mercy. It also indicates that the universe will never be rid of evil, how can New Jerusalem and hell coexist on the same planet?

I became an SDA because the denomination and I use the same looking glass to study the Bible, and come to the same conclusions. With one difference, I do not hold E. G. White's writtings with the same high regard as they do. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to take this too much in to soap box territory, but think it's questionable if punishment of any form is really an act of mercy, more so punishments like burning. If you have a faith or belief system where a merciful god can allow or even encourage such punishments, then it's not that much of a stretch to move that into perpetual punishment. Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh. Punishment is a form of justice, conclusion of punishment is a form of mercy. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, everyone is due the capital punishment for breaking the Law. God is perfectly just, and requires that such a sentence be carried out. However, He is also perfectly merciful, He let His Son undergo the sentence of capital punishment our instead. All who accept the conditions of this bargain and accept it's legitimacy will be found not guilty of all sin. Those that refuse the conditions and deny it's legitimacy will be found guilty, and naturally undergo the sentence.

Essentially, the lives of the accused that are found to be not guilty were purchased with the death of one innocent Person. So their lives are assets of God. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't said anything to contradict what I said, in fact what you're saying appears to concur with it. Either god is truly perfectly merciful in which case they won't allow any punishment (which they have the ability to disallow) and won't impose restrictions which need to be met before they disallow punishment. Or god isn't truly perfectly merciful in your belief system instead only partially merciful (you can call it 'perfectly' merciful if you want, even if it doesn't concur with the everyday understanding of the word 'perfectly' which I prefer to use similar to the way others prefer to use the everyday understanding of the word 'eternal') but also demanding justice or whatever you want to call it. In which case, the concept that god won't do something because it means they aren't merciful is an arbitary restriction, so ultimately anyone can come up with their own variant of said restriction, and there's no intrisic reason why a merciful god can't allow perpetual punishment. (Only perpetually burning someone instead of some worse form of perpetual punishment/torture can also be a form of mercy just the same as ending the punishment after allowing it for a trillion years can be.) P.S. I'm ignoring the possibility of god not being perfectly merciful at the moment, but becoming perfectly merciful later since AFAIK, this isn't a common belief. If under your belief system, god only becomes perfectly merciful later then you could disallow perpetual punishment but not punishment since it means god can't become perfectly merciful (but they aren't before, so the fact they are allowing it isn't an inherent contradiction). Similarly although this was implied, I should clarify if you don't believe in an omnipotent god then you could perhaps come up with the idea of a perfectly merciful god who negotiated with some other party and they reached a deal which god felt was the best that they could reach but it allowed punishment in some circumstances. Of course even in such a system, there's no reason why god couldn't be perfectly merciful but the best deal they could reach allowed perpetual punishment. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the Bible do we find that God is merciful towards ever single person? If you read Romans 9:

"For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” (...) So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." (Romans 9:15-18)

this seems to say that God shows mercy only to a particular group of people: those that He chooses."~-- Lindert (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The story of the rich man and the beggar(Luke 16: 21 - 23 and following) illustrates the concept of individual mercy. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By 'perfectly,' I mean used with perfect discretion - to have mercy without compromising justice. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, all things belong to God, but He will only preserve those who choose to be preserved. He will not claim those that deny Him, by the grace of allowing them free choice. Everything that we own is borrowed from Him. Children belong to God, the task of protecting, providing, guiding, and correcting is given to parents. Children are not property of their parents, but are their responsibility.

You may not be able to 'own' anything, but you can be in 'posession' of something. If you're asking whether you can posess yourself, then no, unless you are schizophrenic. 'You' and 'yourself' are the same thing - you cannot posess yourself anymore than a stone can lay ontop of itself (ignoring extradimensional physics). Depending on the context, you are either free or you serve, but in either case you are owned by God. This is what the Bible says, and is what I mean when I said that Christians would argue this assertion. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You all surely agree, that I'm the owner of it. (even if I still don't understand why, although comments above were of use. But, why I am not the property of my parents? Or partially of the government?

XPPaul (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you would be better off talking to someone who is involved with medical ethics in what ever legal jurisdiction your living in. Ownership, is a human concept and where as 'rights' can be assigned to mortal flesh and bone, ownership to the whole or any part of the body, as far I know – isn't one of them. This BBC article delves in a bit to how it is in the UK. [2]. I think it is very similar to the rest of Europe and the US & Canada etc. Example: If you have to have a gammy leg amputated, you might find it very hard to get the hospital to pass it on to you, should you want to keep it so that it can be buried along with you on your eventual demise - because even you don't own your leg. --Aspro (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good old google, never disappoints. Amputees demand their legs back from hospital.--Aspro (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. And before anybody else chips in: The sale of 'hair' by tradition, is a legal exception in most part of the world. Neil Armstrong ran into this problem a while back.--Aspro (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe XPPaul is the owner of his question, or that anyone here is the owner of whatever content he submitted to wikipedia, according to the current license agreement. 186.206.247.208 (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the OP XP could define just what he means by "ownership". Americans, for example, are not "owned" by anyone, but they are subject to laws and other responsibilities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarians usually take self-ownership as an axiom, and indeed come to the conclusion that being subject to laws others invented but they didn't agree to is immoral. Joepnl (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Including basic laws against theft, murder, etc.? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily I was careful enough to add "others invented" :). The very concepts of ownership and self-ownership include that stealing and murdering is not allowed. Any 4 year old can see the morality of those, expressing them like "She ate my cookie!" or "Charlie bit me!". I think that the concept of ownership and self-ownership is not an invention but a discovery about human nature (but even a lot of other species use the same laws). If you allow me to compare law to math, any law "others invented" that violates these axiomatic laws is inherenty immoral. If someone in America is at serious risk to be locked up by a mighty force because he is selling marijuana I think he is at least partially owned by the US government. Joepnl (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Others invented laws against stealing and murder - you and I didn't. The pot analogy doesn't work, because if you violate that law or any law, you have freely chosen to violate that law, and you have freely chosen to potentially bear the consequences. No one owns you. No one makes you break the law. You choose to do so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, others didn't really invent the laws against stealing and murder either; those are part of natural law (though certainly the implementation details are human-invented). There is no natural law against smoking pot. --Trovatore (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs So here's my law for you which we (in casu, me) unanimously voted for: you pay me $10 a month. I still need to work out the consequences of not doing so, but if you do not pay you have freely chosen and will face the consequences. I guess that's OK with you? Joepnl (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like what Charles Fort said: The Earth is a farm. We are someone else's property. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Baseball: Freedom of choice doesn't inherently mean that you are not owned. A sheep may choose to wander from the flock, and end up lost, but it still belongs to the farmer. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, humans are not legally considered property in the Western world. Legal guardian is the term for when someone else can make decisions about your life (ie. medical care for the elderly, or about anything for children). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Western society has tried to make everything property - land, radio frequencies, DNA sequences, algorithms, even postings to a discussion like this. I'm surprised they don't have ownership claims on the sun and the moon and the word the. But it breaks down. The ownership is an imaginary status; it is not something you can analyze with a mass spectrometer. It is manifested only by how the people claiming "ownership" act and are treated by the courts. So when a failed doctrine like slavery is rejected, it doesn't mean that the ownership "reverts" to the individual; it just means that some people imagine a few fewer things. Wnt (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the original quesion, we cannot be own ourselves - it concept does not make sense. Can a stone lay ontop itself (using no extradimensional physics)? Depending on the context, we are either subjugated by some contract, or we free. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does make sense, like "being your own boss" does. That doesn't mean that you take orders from yourself, but it does mean not having to take someone else's. Similarily, "owning yourself" means that there is no room for someone else to own you. Joepnl (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) The "imaginary" status of ownership is exactly what makes it so cool because ownership is a very abstract term, yet it is understood by any human culture, by small children and even by apes. A similar concept might be "Status" which is also manifest in any culture. Everywhere, everyone understands that the King is still the King even when he's not wearing his crown. The reason why some things can be property and others can't is adequately described in this nice essay. Joepnl (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe: That just creates a paradox. You are saying that a person who does not have a boss, is their own boss. Yet, if that were so, they do have a boss: themselves. By that precept, they can no longer be their own boss, because they have a boss. Therefore, I suggest that it is merely a saying, and cannot be literaly interpreted for the sake of sanity. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I said that only a shizophrenic person can own themselves without creating a paradox. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How could I be talking about "my body", "my habits", "my ability to walk", "my intelligence" etc if they weren't mine? If someone beats me up so badly that I can't walk anymore, why am I the one who gets damages? I must be mine. Joepnl (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is in a different context. If a book is leather bound, does it own the leather, does the book own its pages? Moreover, you are not yours, but you are youself. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we more or less agree and if we really don't let's agree on that. Joepnl (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suits me. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Unincorporated Man is a sci-fi novel about a future society in which people do not own themselves, but may own shares in each other. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Alliances

I have a question (technically two) about historical military alliances in Europe.

Just before the French Revolution, were the alliances UK-Prussia-Netherlands and France-Austria-Russia?
After the Napoleonic Wars (immediately after would be helpful), what were the alliances that sprang up? Was France allied to any?

Any help would be great! 64.229.204.143 (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding question 2 see Holy Alliance. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For your first question, we have an article on the Triple Alliance between Britain, Prussia, and the Netherlands. I don't see an article here about the France/Austria/Russian alliance, but we do have one on the Franco-Austrian Alliance. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, during this time period there was not any Franco-Russian alliance; those alliances sprung up a century or so later (see Franco-Russian Alliance). During the years leading up to the Revolution, France's best alliances were likely with Austria (see Franco-Austrian Alliance) and with the Ottoman Empire (see Franco-Ottoman alliance). France and Spain also had a natural affinity, given that during this time Bourbons sat on the thrones of both countries. --Jayron32 19:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also very important, the system of alliances and coordinated diplomacy that came to Europe following the Napoleonic Era was the Concert of Europe which attempted to prevent French Revolution-style problems and institute "conservative" (in the Metternichian sense) international relations and maintain traditional monarchies whenever possible. The system lasted from the Congress of Vienna which followed the end of the Napoleonic Era in 1815 until the Revolutions of 1848 returned "liberal" ideas to many European countries. Officially, the Concert of Europe lasted until 1914 or so, but in reality, after the Revolutions of 1848 caused a resuffling of European alliances, and from the middle 1800s until WWI, you get the pre-WWI alliance system (the Triple Alliance (1882), the Triple Entente, the League of the Three Emperors, the Entente cordiale). If you want to understand Europe in the immediate post-Napoleonic Era, however, start with Metternich and the Concert of Europe. --Jayron32 20:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]