Humanities desk
< October 21	<< Sep \| Oct \| Nov >>	October 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.

October 22

women priests

In Judaism, Reform Jews and Conservative Jews and Reconstructionist Jews have rabbis who are women. Is Judaism the only religion in the world that have female priests in specific sects? No debate, just simple answer like no or yes. Thanks.--70.31.22.91 (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Don Mustafa[reply]

No. See Ordination of women. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbis are not priests and certainly not priestesses. See http://www.jewfaq.org/rabbi.htm μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise the Christian situation briefly - there's a complete spectrum. The Anglican communion is divided on the subject. The Presiding Bishop of the Anglican Church in the USA is a woman (and also a priest, necessarily). The Church of England is just getting set to create its first women bishops, but has had women priests for some time. The Lutheran Church of Sweden has women bishops too - the Bishop of Stockholm, for example.

The Roman Catholic church and the various Orthodox churches do not have women priests.

Not all Christian churches have priests at all. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, women played and play important rules in all kinds on non-Christian religions. See e.g. Vestal Virgin and Pythia for classical examples. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found Religious sexism: when faith groups started (and two stopped) ordaining women. Alansplodge (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some religions, unlike the Abrahamic religions, explicitly promote the elimination of prejudice. See Baha'i Faith and the unity of humanity. Baha'i has no priests (and considering that rabbis aren't priests, the OP's requirements are probably not strict), but its elected councils are open to both men and women. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, 140. The highest elected council, the Universal House of Justice, is definitely not open to women of any age, experience or wisdom. A 21-year-old male is, however, eligible. Bielle (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any case - in what sense is Baha'i not 'Abrahamic'? AlexTiefling (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Bielle: You're most definitely right. I was somehow under the impression that it wasn't an elected council.

@Alex: It's not Abrahamic in the sense that it doesn't claim to have originated from Abraham and considers numerous religions to be "true", many of which have no relation to Abraham and explicitly claim another founder. In that sense, they're similar to delusional liberals who believe all religions to be true while ignoring the fact that all of them are ludicrous, self-contradictory, and mutually contradictory. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, it developed from a form of Islam (Shaykhism/Babism), which is usually enough to count as "Abrahamic", unless there has been radical discarding of historical influences... You can look at The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis (a determined Christian who definitely did not think that all religions are "true") for a systematic defense of the idea that almost all religions contain valid moral foundations... AnonMoos (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@all. While it is true that the House of Justice is limited in it's membership it is insufficient to summarize the Baha'i principles on the equality of the sexes with just that fact. Individually members of the House are not seen as the highest individual office - that would be Continental Counsellors and yes there have been women. Before that institution there were Hands of the Cause and again there were women - indeed the most prominent in the 20th century were women (see Martha Root, and Rúhíyyih Khanum .) Additionally the principles-in-action represented by the clear prominence of women at the national level outstrips all other international organizations and almost every (I don't know of one, but who knows) national organization in freely voting for a higher percentage of women to office holders. As for priests - yes there are none and that goes with being intermediaries in religious rites to be "right" with God - as there are none of the former there are none of the latter. And in particular to being Abrahamic - it is true the religion acknowledges non-Abrahamic religions this does not invalidate it as Abrahamic. Obviously it acknowledges Abraham and claims to have descend ended from two of his wives, and there are reviews that make many parallels in teachings between the religions as is detailed in the Abrahamic religions article. As for not taking seriously that there are problems of interpretation - well there are two parts to that -taking it seriously, and wrestling with those differences. On the first part let me offer, in another connection, that my father in law was a conscioustous objector to WWII and that during his time in the forest of Oregon in a work camp he became a Baha'i and then had to go through boot camp and served as a non-combatent in war as a medic. I can't say all Baha'is take all things seriously, but clear some do and it matters. I've not seen a systematic study of how Baha'is wrestle with the contradictory approaches taken within and among all the religions but a common thought and one you can find in a religion-by-religion analysis is that if you look at the original scriptures you can find bridges of understanding that resolve differences others later made into particular understandings and lost the ability to think again what they meant. This is why - in the Abrahamic lineage - you have religion after religion, rather than a succession of one religion (similarly in the system of eastern faiths with Hinduism to Buddhism which could have been a succession of one religion.) But that would not be possible today with the administrations of each religion. Smkolins (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the person Obama is bowing to?

Who's Obama bowing to in this picture? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Yushchenko ---Sluzzelin talk 02:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, he looks great since the poisoning. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yuschenko's disfigurement was primarily chloracne and bloating, both of which fade over time. You can see the fading over the years — 2006 (bloating and chloracne) 2007 (just chloracne) 2009/2009 (much faded chloracne). (Compare before/after in 2004). I suspect some of his scarring may be permanent but it's gotten a lot better. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unambigiously clear that Obama is in fact bowing. It's quite possible that he is meley looking at and commenting on Yushchenko's shoes. Roger (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he's both bowing and shaking hands at the same time, as he did much to the amusement of the incumbent Mikado?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... bowing and shaking hands at the same time. Obama is known for doing this when greeting other heads of state (especially when he is the visitor to their country). Some criticize him for this practice (seeing the bow as a sign of submission, which should not be done between equals). Others don't have a problem with it (seeing the bow as a sign of respect, perfectly acceptable between equals). Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously he's about to pull the old "your shoelace is untied" gag. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amazons

According to our article on the Amazons:

"According to ancient sources, (Plutarch Theseus,[74] Pausanias), Amazon tombs could be found frequently throughout what was once known as the ancient Greek world. Some are found in Megara, Athens, Chaeronea, Chalcis, Thessaly at Skotousa, in Cynoscephalae and statues of Amazons are all over Greece. At both Chalcis and Athens Plutarch tells us that there was an Amazoneum or shrine of Amazons that implied the presence of both tombs and cult. On the day before the Thesea at Athens there were annual sacrifices to the Amazons."

As far as I know, the Classical Greeks thought the Amazons were humans, not goddesses. Not only that, they were enemies of Greece and never had a single friendly encounter. So why were the Amazons worshipped? --140.180.242.9 (talk) 06:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that to the ancient Greeks, the Gods were just normal humans who happened to be immortal. And there were those in-between, like Hercules. So, they could think of the Amazons, at various times, as legendary humans or as goddesses. StuRat (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

140.180.242.9 -- In ancient Greek culture, local ancestors and culture heroes / "demigods" were honored, and sometimes sacrificed to, without being confused with gods as such... AnonMoos (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the amazons were neither the ancestors of the Greeks nor demigods. The only full mortals I know of who were sacrificed to were legendary founders (and Greeks) like Perseus. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't particularly divinities, but they were semi-mythical figures with striking personal characteristics, and if some of them developed local associations, they might be considered "heroes" in a sense... AnonMoos (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whitecollar : 2 cultural questions please

Hello L.O. (Learned Ones) ! The TV serie Whitecollar is gaining audience in France, thanks to its aesthetic qualities and winding intrigues, & the IIIrd season, 14° episod (Pulling Strings) has been welcomed : bound to be, it features Matt. Bomer as a beloved character of ours : Arsène Lupin (or at least as his great-grand-son) , and a good value for us here, a Stradivarius violin. Could you give me some cultural references tips about :

1/ the doll retrieved after 30 years : great round sullen eyes, concave profile with sunken little nose, stiff bleached hair, limp body, makes you think of an abused off-spring from alcoolic parents... I don’t remember having seen such a freak in little girls’s hands during the ’80. Was this doll à la mode in the US then , did it have a specific name ?

2/ I didn’t see clearly what New York concert hall Neal and Sara were attending : a wide amphitheatrum with big low armchairs, with mustard-colored (I think) walls and furniture. Can you tell me what theater it was ? Thank you beforehand for your answers, T.y Arapaima (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) Cabbage Patch Kids: [1] ? They were quite the fad in the 1980s. StuRat (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at screenshots (ETA: here) it doesn't seem to be a cabbage patch kid. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey! It bears a slight resemblance to a Troll doll, but I can only find pictures of smiling ones.[2] Alansplodge (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It rings no bells with me. This wouldn't be the first fictional fad. —Tamfang (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to [3] it's a Little Miss No Name, a Hasbro line from 1965. (What, do we not have an article?) Marnanel (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be the concert hall? That's the Metropolitan Opera House at the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts. (ETA Or the Avery Fisher Hall?) --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot to you all for your answers ! About the "Little Miss No Name", I fairly understand some children threw it away, as told in the Whitecollar episode...Arapaima (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Pistols

All the (semi)automatic pistols I have seen require manual loading of first cartridge, i.e. after inserting a loaded magazine you pull and release the bolt slide so that first cartridge gets into breech, then you fire and need not pull bolt next time, hence "automatic". My question is that are there any models that do not require the loading of first bullet ? If so then how does it manage to get first cartridge from magazine into breech ? 124.253.95.164 (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to first question - No. Answer to second question - Moot (see answer to first question). All automatic weapons invented so far require a deliberate action by the operator to move the first round from the feed mechanism into the chamber. This applies equally to hanguns, rifles, machineguns all the way up to large automatic cannon. Roger (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question reminds me of a funny blunder in The Killing (Kubrick's heist movie, 1956): Elisha Cook picks up an empty pistol, works the slide and then inserts a magazine, leaving the chamber empty.

A quibble worth noting imho: With most pistols, when you fire the last round of a magazine, the slide stays open. You then replace the magazine and release a catch, and the slide closes, loading the first round with less work on your part. —Tamfang (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, of course. I know my bit about guns, especially autos, to know that " All automatic weapons invented so far require a deliberate action by the operator to move the first round from the feed mechanism into the chamber. This applies equally to hanguns, rifles, machineguns all the way up to large automatic cannon." , as told above. That is the reason I am asking this question ! A vendor told me about a .25 that works (he claims) thus ! and we are not talking about the bolt held back by previously exhausted magazine as Tamfang has told... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.253.60.148 (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not always a good thing, because it tells everyone that you've fired your last shot. Alansplodge (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last living veteran of the Second Anglo Afghan War?

Last living veteran of the Second Anglo-Afghan War? Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 10:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The best I can do is; The Second Anglo-Afghan War 1878-1880 which links to Yahoo Groups: The Second Anglo-Afghan War and says that "Some topics already mentioned include... longest living Afghan war veterans." You have to join the group to read the messages. Alansplodge (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should have known; WHAAOE. See List_of_last_survivors_of_historical_events#1850–1900; "Hugh Theodore Pinhey - February 6, 1953 (aged 96) - Last veteran of the Second Anglo-Afghan War." Alansplodge (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an amazing list. It even names the "last individual who claimed to have spoken to Virgin Mary." No more claimants then?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's surprising to me. Do Catholics no longer ask her to do something or other now and at the hour of their deaths amen?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not just Catholics... although, apparently she does not reply as often as she used to do. Perhaps the entry should be changed to "last individual to claim that the Virgin Mary spoke to him/her" Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not right either, since I'm sure there are many mentally ill people who have imagined that she's spoken to them. Perhaps "last individual believed by the Roman Catholic Church to have spoken with the Virgin Mary"? This also avoids the implication that Wikipedia is judging the merits of any claims. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even more amazing is that whenever Joe and Rose Kennedy had a child, it's regarded as a historical event. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That 1917 Fatima claim is wrong, anyway. According to Marian apparition, the Catholic Church has accepted the claims of later apparitions and conversations with the Virgin Mary: in Beauraing 1932/33, Banneux 1933, and Akita 1973. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what's going on. It's saying that Lúcia Santos was the last survivor of a conversation with Mary (1917), because she lived till as late as 2005. I'm still not sure that's a correct claim. Sister Agnes Sasagawa, who conversed with Mary at Akita in 1973, has not to my knowledge died, so she has outlived Lúcia Santos. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they must meant that she was the last of the three children to see her at (edit) Fatima. I've edited the list to be clearer. --NellieBly (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nellie. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More about our man Hugh; a long letter that he wrote to his mother describing the Siege of Kandahar can be seen here. "Hugh Pinhey was an Assistant Superintendent in the telegraphy department, but for the duration of the siege was given the rank of lieutenant and assigned to the 4th Bombay Rifle Corps". Alansplodge (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A serious flaw in any "Last living veteran of the <"civilized country"> versus <"savage tribe"> wars" list, is that reliable information exists for the veterans of only one side. In this particular case - who was the last Afghan veteran? Roger (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, perhaps "last British veteran" would be more accurate. Alansplodge (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oath of Office of the President of the United States

Since this is the Oath of Office of the President of the United States [the district], an employee of the congress under the constitution of the US of 1789 and the chief administrator for the united States of America. What information is available regarding the "Oath of office for the President of the United States of America" under the Articles of Confederation 1777(?) as found in the present/current United States Code????

Thank you, robert: carr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.114.72 (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Articles of Confederation there was no such office as President of the United States. The nearest thing was the President of the Continental Congress, but that was a far less powerful office, having a one year term and very limited authority. The Articles did not specify an oath for that office. Looie496 (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The President of the Congress was basically the Speaker; he was in charge of maintaining order at the meetings of Congress and almost nothing else. There was no single Chief Executive of the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation (also no unified currency, barely any military, no federal judiciary, etc. AFAIK, all they did was send ambassadors abroad to secure loans and trade agreements and not much else). --Jayron32 22:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being a member of the Continental Congress was a thankless and largely powerless office, and being the President of the Continental Congress also had its drawbacks. It is very easy to envision someone being elected, but not wanting to take on the office (Poor health, etc). Thus there was a need for some action to be taken at some point in time whereby the electee actually accepted and assumed the office. Journals of the Continental Congress were preserved. So what words were uttered, what actions were taken, and how was the action logged in the journal of the Continental Congress by the Secretary thereof? Edison (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A volume of the Journal says that the secretary and clerks had to take "an oath of fidelity to the United States and an oath of fidelity for the execution of their respective trusts." It is likely that the president had to take similar oaths. Edison (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly not. As a delegate from his state, the president was already an elected official and a member of Congress, so a new oath may have been superfluous. The secretaries and clerks were new hires, however. —Kevin Myers 00:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kippah type fabric Reconstructionist

In the Kippah article, you mentioned the type of kippahs for different sects of jewish and the fabric. What about Reconstructionists? Which fabric do they use for kippahs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.207 (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'll get a better chance of a good answer by posting this question at Talk:Kippah. You might want to crosspost a link to that question at Talk:Reconstructionist Judaism, but please don't cross post by putting up the question twice. --Dweller (talk) 09:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sects protestantism

What are the main sects of Protestantism practiced in the world today in USA, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, South Africa, Anglophone Caribbean, UK, Australia and New Zealand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.207 (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By sect, do you mean branch/movement or are you referring to denominations? Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland each have a very large state/national church, which is by far the largest denomination in their resprective countries. All of these are Lutheran, but few of the members actually attend church services. Germany likewise has mainly Lutherans, although these are divided into many individual (though often cooperating) churches. The Protestant Church in the Netherlands is the largest protestant denomination in the Netherlands. This church and most other Dutch protestant churches originated from the Dutch Reformed Church, and are mostly rooted in reformed (calvinist) theology. I'll let others address the other countries. - Lindert (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your desired data for the US are available at Christianity in the United States, with a comprehensive list of like articles at Christianity by country. — Lomn 18:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian Kolbe

Hello,

I am curious about the article Maximilian Kolbe. What happened that it was viewed 56000 times in one day and was vandalized almost consequently? Just curious. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 18:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was October 10. The article appeared on the main page in the "On this day" area, marking the 30th anniversary of his elevation to sainthood. Looie496 (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

how are saints made?

Yesterday on the radio I heard several times that someone was "made" a saint. Am I right in thinking that canonization (at least in Rome) doesn't make a saint but rather recognizes that someone is a saint? —Tamfang (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, but the point is a technical one, and it's almost certain the reporter got it wrong. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saints are not made, they are born. Now seriously, just check canonization for more details, you just get recognized to be a saint. 80.39.52.222 (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can "install" a pope without the aid of a rivet gun, it only stands to reason that you can "make" a saint without a factory. :-) StuRat (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I just figured the radio reporter had confused saints with the British system of titles of nobility, or possibly the mafia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speak softly, Bugs. They won't want to hear that. --NellieBly (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"They" being Saints, Peers of the Realm or mafiosi? Surely a conjunction rarely found in one sentence. Alansplodge (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "created" is the more commonly used term in titles of nobility. "He was created the Earl of Oil", or whatever. In the underworld a "made guy" has committed his first murder for the family business. It's curious to think of a saint as being a "made guy". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suddenly reminded of The Bishop. Dismas|^(talk) 04:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christian traditions...

Where and how can I find information about specific methods or beliefs of different Christian intepretative traditions? Often, people use the general term "in some traditions" without nailing on which tradition they may be referring to, thereby drawing a blank. Even the Wikipedia article Sacred Tradition talks about how this tradition is passed down orally, in the lives of Christians, thereby giving the impression that the only way to understand Christianity fully is to meet a Christian in person and assume that Christian knows/understand scripture as well as tradition passed down by his/her ancestors or learned from the church. Furthermore, the Christian would presumably use the conversation as an opportunity to proselytize the non-Christian, making the Christian life and faith attractive in every way to the point of bringing in more converts. How do Christians know what traditions to reject and what traditions to accept and what traditions are ought to be modified, or do they just accept whatever is part of their church without question? This may hint at the pejorative connotation of the word indoctrination. 140.254.227.51 (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, would you take it from me that I'm a practising member of the Church of England, that I have no interest in converting you, and that I know a reasonable amount about my own tradition and others?

It's important to understand the distinction between a tradition and a denomination. For example, the high church tradition is found in Anglicanism and in Lutheranism. Those denominations are separate (although some of their constituent churches are linked by the Porvoo Agreement), and each contains many congregations (a sizeable majority) who do not represent that tradition - but also many who do.

And it's not just about scripture and the interpretation of scripture. Indeed, when the Roman Catholic church refers to its own three teaching traditions, only one of those is scripture. The others are reason and tradition itself. The idea that Christian life and worship is all about the Bible is itself the product of one particular tradition - which is often called fundamentalist, but might more properly be called evangelical.

So if you have specific questions, please ask. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamentalist tradition would fit under the evangelical tradition, which would be a subset of Protestantism, as many evangelicals use the Protestant Bible (66 books, no Apocrypha). With so many Christian traditions around, it is easy for one particular denomination to think that that denomination is the one true church or one true faith and thus is superior than the other churches or denominations. Some Christians treat Christianity as a big-marketing strategy to help emotionally/socially isolated people or social outcasts or impoverished people in order to convert these people to Christianity. Also, given that some churches explicitly describe on their church websites that "salvation is free", they are hinting that anybody can become a Christian and receive God's "free gift", even though they may be forgetting that they are expecting that the Christians ought to behave what the church wants them to behave. 140.254.227.51 (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) :"Tradition" is a word that is often used nowadays to mean Christian denomination (our article uses the word twice in the first paragraph). It's a move away from "this is our faith and other Christians are wrong" towards "this is our faith, others have different traditions". So I suspect "in some traditions" means "in some denominations". Use of the word "church" in this meaning can be confusing, as it can refer to a) all Christians, regarded as "Christ's body on earth" Saint Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 12: verses 12-27 b) a particular denomination c) a subset within that denomination as the Church of England and the Church in Wales within Anglicanism d) a particular local congregation or e) an actual building. "How do Christians know what traditions to reject and what traditions to accept"? The most obvious answer is that they usually go to church on Sunday (see meaning "e") where those traditions are enacted, and explained during the sermon. Alansplodge (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, the only way to see the traditions enacted or come to life is to actually enter a church, or if you are a non-Christian, pretend to be one and enter a church, so that you can witness the sermon, the style, the manner, et cetera, and compare that experience to all Christian churches you may have visited in your local area - which, again, can be quite subjective - in order to track down what a particular church believes in. I suppose one needs to keep one's eye open when walking inside a church to see what others are doing and that person does the same. In Western churches, everyone does the same thing at the same time, which to Eastern churches would seem very regimented. In Eastern churches, everyone does different things at the same time and stand up to worship, which to Western churches would seem very disorganized. The non-Christian visitor would somehow have to find a way to keep that in mind and make an attempt to blend in with the crowd. Sort of like Waldo. 140.254.227.51 (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You will not have to pretend to be a Christian at all. Usually there are no restrictions for attending a service/sermon. If anyone asks, just tell them you are interested to learn about their faith. You could also ask if you can speak to the pastor or to an elder sometime after the service to learn more, or you can find the church's website, which will usually contain a statement of faith and more. - Lindert (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) Given that you asked this question, you've also done an awful lot to answer it too - mostly by delivering a sermon of your own. The short answer to your original question 'where and how can I find information' is (obviously) right here, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. But I made a genuine offer to answer specific questions about my own tradition and those in which I've studied. If you've got questions, ask away. I'll try to back my answers up with links and so on where possible. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. There was this organization on campus that offered Bible study sessions every Wednesday. So, I attended a couple of times, and during my time there, it seemed that the group derived its interpretations on annotations made by "Living Stream Ministry". I looked up the ministry on Wikipedia, and noticed that it was an evangelical Christian ministry. Nevertheless, the group displayed on its website that it was "interdenominational", accommodating all denominations, not just "evangelical". One time, the group had these tiny pieces of paper that advertised "The Recovery Version" of the Bible, specifically the New Testament. How trustworthy or representative of Christianity are evangelicals? Do they just represent a non-denominational Protestant tradition? 140.254.227.51 (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that would be a non-denominational evangelical Protestant group. For the maximum amount of amusement, you should tell them you're Roman Catholic. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, most evangelicals are not non-denominational. The answer on whether they represent Christianity well will obviously differ on whom you ask. - Lindert (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Going to an organization that offers Bible study lessons might not really be the best idea. There's a good chance you'll be surrounding yourself with zealots. You'll immediately stand out as a new face/outsider, and might perhaps be interrogated or be seen as a potential convert if you profess disbelief. .

As an agnostic atheist raised in a strongly Catholic society (the Philippines), I've had more than enough experience in being a non-Christian visitor in Christian mass. If you really want to see the different Christian traditions, try going instead to larger congregations, pick a mass held in a cathedral if you can. That way you won't have to defend yourself from overzealous conversion. In such environments, you won't have to pretend to be Christian. You won't even be asked. People don't really take much notice of others in large churches, except during the part where they say "peace be with you" to the people around them. The same is true with the older and larger denominations like the Anglican Church or the Orthodox Church. Just try to follow what everybody else is doing (e.g. stand when they stand). However, it's perfectly alright if you don't sing, chant, eat the bread (in fact, you shouldn't), or make the sign of the cross, you can even elect to stay seated during the time when the participants kneel. That's usually what non-Catholic people here do when taking part in a Catholic mass (usually in cases of mixed-religion families). Nobody will glare at you, they only do that when you fall asleep, lol. It's far less uncomfortable than going to evangelical churches or one of those extremely small protestant churches. Any stranger can enter one without having to be confronted with his beliefs, whereas in evangelical churches, you will likely immediately be noticed.

Admittedly, despite being an atheist, I'm more sympathetic to Catholics, as I was raised one, and most of my friends and relatives are Catholics. I know Catholics have a rather unfair image in American culture of being ultratraditionalist and pious due to their adherence to rituals and the "no sex before marriage"/"no divorce"/"no prophylactics" thing, but it's rather the opposite really. They're far less aggressive in converting people (with 1 billion members, they're pretty secure), are more tolerant of other faiths (at least at present times), largely self-sufficient (i.e. they don't trick your grandma into giving them her life savings), their clergy don't have personal net worths in the billions like Pat Robertson, and they're actually less fundamentalist than the Protestant churches that dot rural America. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) OK - this I can answer.

1) The idea of non-denominational ministries is very much associated with Protestantism, especially in America. The reason is simple - one can't be a non-denominational Catholic, Anglican or Orthodox, because membership of those traditions more or less requires adherence to a corresponding denomination. In Europe, there are major churches representing Protestant traditions such as Lutheranism and Presbyterianism - and in some places, those are the state-backed established churches. It's in America that free-floating Protestantism thrives.

2) Evangelicalism is definitely a movement or tradition,and not a denomination. So it's entirely possible for something to be interdenominational and yet thoroughly evangelical. Of course, they might not appear so completely interdenominational if you mentioned you were Roman Catholic, or Orthodox. The idea of a genuinely interdenominational ministry that insists not only on a particular canon of scripture, but also on a specific translation (obscure, and both commissioned and sold by the ministry itself) seems odd to me. I can generally expect to go into a church of my own denomination or any of the other major ones round here, and find several different translations on hand. I might even hear as many as three translations in the course of a single service. Most of those are just that - translations. No interpretation is provided, except perhaps for some tellingly biased chapter headings and a few notes from the translators.

3) Evangelicalism is huge. It's probably the largest single cross-denominational movement in Christianity. So my observations about Living Stream are in no way indicative of all Evangelicals! Indeed, Evangelicals have contributed substantially to the Bible translations used in my own and other denominations, and to their worship styles. I don't think it's possible to make useful generalisations about the trustworthiness of evangelicals.

4) The claim to be cross-denominational is considerably undermined by the fact that there is a close connection between the Local Churches and Living Stream.

5) So I would suggest that Living Stream are not really cross-denominational, or representative of evangelicals generally. I have no way to judge their trustworthiness, except to say that if you put "Recovery Version" into Google, one of its leading auto-complete suggestions is "Bible cult". Our article about the Local Churches movement has some poorly-referenced claims about the specifically Chinese origins of this movement.

6) Please feel free to ask further. I've got an associate's degree in theology (from an institution which does not grade according to doctrinal soundness), so some technical and historical queries may be easier to answer than others. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking this may differ from place to place. My experience with the phrase "non-denominational" is that it's often used to deceive potential congregants into seeing a church as more open and more mainstream than it actually is. And they always are a member of a denomination - they just don't want to admit it right off. --NellieBly (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd view a claim of being 'non-denominational' as valid if (a) it applied to a Free church which genuinely was not part of any larger structure, or (b) it applied to a publisher, service provider or other organisation which produced material which was applicable to the practice and worship of several denominations. But I broadly agree with your criticism of the way the term is used. I'd also suggest that it's used to appear less mainstream. I often see the term 'mainline protestant' used in the US in a vaguely negative sense to refer to (eg) Lutherans - the implication being that Protestant groups with more divergent eccelsiology (such as Baptists) or fewer ties to 'corrupt' mainstream society. Some of these organisations are themselves both modern and regressive all at once; the Southern Baptists are the only large denomination to have abandoned the ordination of women to the ministry. Amazingly, not all of their existing women ministers walked out. (See thread further up about this topic.) AlexTiefling (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The internet resource I refer to is Beliefnet, which will give you the answers for questions about Christianity and other religions too. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I would not say beliefnet.com (or any other website) can give the answers to religious questions, but it certainly gives an answer to such questions. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. How much bloodshed could have been avoided if certain groups had not insisted they were the one sole true religion. There are many one sole true religions. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Start all over. Frank Mead's Handbook of Denominations is a great introduction to religion in the USA; despite its name, it doesn't restrict itself to Christians, so you won't see groups being left out simply because the author thought that they weren't truly Christians. Granted, it's just in the USA, but so many denominations in other countries are present in the USA that this will be a good introduction to Christianity in other countries. You'll need to buy it or borrow it from a library, as it's new enough that it's not online, but this work is perhaps the best thing that you can get in any way, shape, or form. Nyttend (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP should also understand, if it's not already clear, that "tradition" in theological terms means something a bit different from the everyday, informal use of the word. Nor is there a single, universally agreed definition among various churches. If you re-read the Sacred Tradition article as well as the related Sola scriptura article, you will see that in the theological sense, "tradition" to some people means "a collection of practices and doctrines which accrue, gradually becoming something more developed" - or in other cases, "patristic, conciliar, and liturgical texts" and commentaries on them - or the "historical continuity of interpretation [of the Bible] and teaching" of a certain church. But generally speaking, all that is meant by "sacred tradition" of one church or another is in written form somewhere - basically IMO it boils down to "all the teachings of a church beyond the words of the Bible" - but it's not a big secret that only people who are already members of that church know - it can be looked up and researched for a given church or denomination. Whether it's worth your while to do so is another question, of course. Textorus (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can always read Wikipedia. Though, it will probably take some time trying to remember all sorts of religion-related trivia. Certainly, looking up and researching your desired information for a given church or denomination would be useful. However, one may have to keep in mind that the words are descriptory and may not capture the emotions. Perhaps, experience and emotions at a real church service can add to the knowledge about the church. 140.254.227.51 (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cycling and drug cheats

Why has this sport been dominated by drug cheats? Ankh.Morpork 21:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because it is hardly possible to compete without it, and apparently drug tests were inadequate for detecting the drugs used in many cases. Maybe a better question would be why other sports haven't. Or have they? - Lindert (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's circular cycular reasoning, Lindert, It's become "hardly possible to compete without drugs", precisely because the playing field has been distorted so badly by people taking drugs in the first place in order to give themselves an unfair advantage over their opponents. It's almost an "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" situation. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Lindert's argument. One person in sport X uses performance-enhancing drugs, gets away with it, and wins. The losers then realize they must take performance-enhancing drugs if they are to win (even if they don't know that the winner was using them). So, "one bad (undiscovered) apple spoils the bunch". StuRat (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's survival of the fittest. The fittest are the ones that use performance-enhancing drugs. It's only natural that fair players 'die out'. - Lindert (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although let's be careful about ~~suggesting~~ inferring that all successful cyclists are abusing drugs. Alansplodge (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, don't do that, or you will be infer it. StuRat (talk) 05:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

(edit conflict) The answer is, of course "Because they can". For decades, it was ridiculously hard to get caught, you had to be a total idiot in order to get caught. If using PEDs meant you got to make shitloads more money than everyone else that wasn't, AND there was next to no chance of getting caught if you were careful, then it seems easy to understand why. --Jayron32 22:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I don't think cycling is the only professional sport dominated by doping, doping occurs in practically all professional sports. It just seems to be the one sport where there has recently been an overall campaign against it in the media as well as in some sports organisations. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No other sport has experienced the same level of systemic abuse. Since 1996, it has only happened once that all top three cyclists in the Tour de France have tested clean (2012) and it has occurred 13 times that all three, or two of the top three, were found to have used performance enhancing drugs. Lance Armstrong, Floyd Landis, Alberto Contador, Bernhard Kohl, Frank Scleck are examples of recent high-profile cases and it is no exaggeration to state that they represent the norm, not a minority. Ankh.Morpork 08:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that doping is a problem in many professional sports. I think, at least until recently, endurance athletes have had an easier time getting away with it. The drug of choice in say, sprinting or baseball is an anabolic steroid, whose metabolites are detectable in the urine a lot longer than EPO is, which a cyclist uses. It makes it easier for a cyclist to dodge drug tests: if he can get even short notice of an upcoming test, he can get clean pretty easily. Inject some saline right before blood is drawn for testing. Etc. EPO is also produced naturally by the body, making it harder to tell whether a cyclist has taken the stuff, or is just producing it at higher levels than average. The typical way to tell the difference is different patterns of glycosylation, but it's pretty subtle. Buddy431 (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For more info how Armstrong was beating testing, as detailed by the recently released report from the USADA, you can look at [4]. There were several factors: off-season drug tests could be pretty easily avoided, the tests weren't that sensitive (or even didn't exist for some of the stuff they were taking), the team learned about "unannounced" drug tests ahead of time, the team was able to mask the signal of drugs with different techniques. That's not to say that similar techniques don't occur in other sports. The steroid THG was nicknamed The clear because (for a while) there was no test for it. This was what was used in the US baseball doping scandal a few years ago, as well as other athletes in other sports. Buddy431 (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of good points have been made above, but there's also a simple factor. To the best of my knowledge, there is no drug that improves coordination skills in the long term, so it is unlikely that any drug will have much of an effect on golfing ability, for example. In sports like baseball, where coordination and strength play a role, the effect of building muscle will be muted if someone has poor coordination. Hence, in endurance sports, there is just more to gain. IBE (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well because initially they (drugs, blood doping, etc) were legal - see blood doping: "Blood doping probably started in the 1970s but was not outlawed until 1986. While it was still legal, it was commonly used by middle and long-distance runners.". After they were outlaw, concerns arise regarding the reliability and competence of some laboratories doing the testing. The World Anti-Doping Agency has also been criticized for not having an effective criteria for testing for EPO. The cycling's governing body might not be trusted to do its own anti-doping, and efforts to develop a coherent anti-doping strategy have been undermined by political in-fighting. See (or listen) to the two part BBC podcast: Secrets in the blood part 1 part 2 (First broadcast on 28 Jul 2008, so even back then it's a widely know secret and nothing new.) Royor (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been close to a few sports at top level (no, not as a competitor), and I would suggest that cycling wasn't really trying as hard as some others to find the cheats. Timing of tests was well known, and too far from competition time. And Armstrong did bring in the crowds and money. One sport I'd like to hear more about, but which we don't hear much of in the English speaking world, is cross country ski racing. A fiend gave up 15 years ago because he was too principled to do the drugs all the leaders were doing. As for golf and similar sports, the likely area to find drugs is their use in recovery from injury. Steroids can help a lot there. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google gave lots of entries for Nordic skiing and drugs - for example, the entire Finnish ski team was banned because of drugs, and lots of Russians. It seems that there were lots of bans in the early 00's, but that the number of bans have dropped off since - with the exception of Russians. It seems still to be widespread there. With ski jumping, maybe appetite suppressants would be the drug of choice: Sven Hannawald retired because of the ravages of anorexia, and I'm sure others suffer too. Personally I'd love to know what Ole Einar Bjorndalen was on, I'd love to believe it was fresh air and an addiction to exercise. Let's see what the coming winter brings to this fantastic sport. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all sports are equally dependent from endurance alone. Soccer needs some talent, basketball needs some talent, baseball needs some talent. You cannot get those things from a drugs. Comploose (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I can't see the relevance. HiLo48 (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answering the question: the field is dominated by drug cheats because it's possible to dominate the field cheating with drugs. If wannabe soccer/basketball/baseball could cheat through drugs, their whole respective fields would also be dominated by drug cheats, but clean players have good chances to dominate through talent. It's just a summary of things said above. Comploose (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the international organization is going to leave all those years' titles vacant does not speak well of the stewardship of the sport by the organization. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In its statement, the UCI said it "acknowledged that a cloud of suspicion would remain hanging over this dark period - but that while this might appear harsh for those who rode clean, they would understand there was little honour to be gained in reallocating places." – [5] -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations: "Ant. ad. Magn."

What do the above abbreviations stand for? Also, it was near an abbreviation "Ern." The "Ern." abbreviation is not a name, but a title. Lastly, there was "Ern. Ant." before a name. It might be French or Latin.

Thanks for your time. Ribbiters (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems it's Latin and stands for "Antiphon ad Magnificat", apparently some kind of hymn. "Ern. Ant." is used as an abbreviation of a name here e.g.: Ern. Ant. Nicolai = Ernst Anton Nicolai. - Lindert (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The antiphon for the Magnificat is a short prayer or anthem used before the Magnificat itself at Evening Prayer. The most famous examples are the Great Advent Antiphons, used in the week before Christmas Eve - but there are plenty of others. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]