Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 October 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
< October 15 <<Sep | October | Nov>> October 17 >
Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.


Contents


[edit] In the future, will Che Guevara be venerated as a Christlike figure?

Just been thinking about the 'cult of Che' that seems to exist these days. Some might say that Guevara was a good, kind, honest and noble man of moral integrity who preached a doctrine of freedom for all mankind and for this, he died a martyr's death at the hands of evil men. Already the line between fact and myth is becoming blurred. Do you think that one day, perhaps hundreds of years from now, people will see Che as a Christ/messiah figure, worship his image and claim he was sent to earth by God himself? The guy even looked a bit like Jesus, come to think of it.

I'm not trying to make a political point here - the idea just popped into my head when I realized just how much some people are into this guy, without even knowing that much about his life, or having constructed some sort of fairytale around him. --84.65.109.37 01:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Do a bit more research. You might come to understand a little better the suffering he imposed on the Cuban people, especially when he was Minister for Economics. The future? Who knows. Even Pontius Pilate is a saint for some. White Guard 01:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
If Che is remembered in 100 years it will be for his travels in South America and the people he met and ideas he picked up there, or for his part in the Cuban Revolution or for his betrayal and martyr-like death in Columbia. But it will most certainly not be for his role as minister for economics. Can you imagine anyone being worshipped for their role as a minister? DirkvdM 06:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Evita. Well, close as, anyway. White Guard 07:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Che may look cool on a t-shirt, but he didn't write down any deep thoughts (afaik) or do any awesome deeds. He stopped Batista's army at Santa Clara (or rather he was in charge of that), but that's just a major part in an successful military campaign. Quite the opposite of what one would expect of a messiah. He may have preached peace but he practised war (for a better alternative, check out Ghandi). His wartime diary may be an exciting read (especialy the beginning reads like an adventure novel), but not quite the bible. Of course, Jesus didn't do any writing either, but he had his disciples to do that for him, and I don't see anyone doing that for el Che. DirkvdM 06:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe he executed POWs, not exactly something to be worshipped for. StuRat 10:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeh and jesus killed pigs, beat up people in the temple, and chopped down trees, but there not the bits we remember him for. Philc TECI 17:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Yup, Stu and White look at it the wrong way around. There isn't a single worshipped person who hasn't done somehting wrong. To get noticed you have to stick your neck out and if yo do that you unaboidably make mistakes. Also, any worshippers will probably ingore or even deny them. DirkvdM 08:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Technically, I think it was God that burnt the fig tree. Jesus just asked him to... ;) If he cut down tress, I believe it was because he was a carpenter, i.e. he was a lumberjack so that's okay. 惑乱 分からん 13:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tattoo History

Could anyone direct me to some detailed information regarding tattoo history in Germany? I'm looking for very early tattoo designs, say from Roman times. In any case, before Captain Cook came back from the Polynesian Islands. But any information on early tattoo history would be useful.

Thanks in advance.

--24.18.236.29 03:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmm, that's a very specific timeframe and so it's unlikely you'll find much on the subject. Tattooing is one of those things which historians don't tend to write about, especially in societies where tattooing is widespread. Written accounts of tattooing in Western writing didn't really appear until the late 1700's, when explorers from the Pacific wrote about natives' tattoos, which were a curiosity to Europeans, as tattooing in Europe was almost unheard of between the Roman Empire and the nineteenth century. Finding drawings of tattoo designs (or "flashes" as they are known in the trade) from ancient Germany is probably nigh-on impossible. The Romans, as I'm sure you are aware, had a rather low opinion of tribes living outside their Empire and so it's highly unlikely that any Roman writers chronicled such practices, and even less likely that any records have survived. Besides, as far as I'm aware, European tribes in Roman times did not use tattooing, they used woad.

As far as early tattoo history is concerned, the tattoo page has a fair bit of background. We know that tattooing was practiced in Ancient Egypt, as drawings of dancers often show hieroglyphic symbols and pictures tattooed onto dancers' bodies. The history of tattooing in East Asia is far better-recorded than anywhere else in the world, it shouldn't be too hard to find some reference works on that. As for Europe, tattooing doesn't seem to have been that common. There's a verse somewhere in the Old Testament which explicity forbades tattooing; so it must have existed amongst the Jewish people when the Old Testament was written, but that verse more or less put a ban on an already-rare practice in Europe. It wasn't until the nineteenth century that tattooing started to gain popularity in Europe again. One thing you could do is take a trip along to a good local tattoo parlour, they usually have stacks of tattoo magazines and some of the more upmarket ones often have articles about tattooing history, I remember reading an article last time I was getting tattooed about tattooing in Roman-era Scotland. It's worth a try! Rusty2005 12:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] movie sex scenes

do actors really have sex when filming a sex scene in a movie?

Sometimes, apparently. See List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

For mainstream films usually not. For porno, often but not always.

If you can't see that it's real sex, it's hardly porn, is it? DirkvdM 06:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
No, on the contrary, it is softly porn.  --LambiamTalk 14:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
A rule of thumb would be: if it is softcore, they're acting it out. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 15:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no clues but do the actors & actresses really engage in sex while film shoot?

How is that different from the original question? It has already been answered above. JackofOz 01:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
But apparently this time we get no clues.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  08:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 127th Street Ensemble

How real is the so-called "famous 127th Street Ensemble"? Aside from Wikipedia-derived information, google reveals virtually nothing about this famous ensemble, except in connection with Tupac Shakur. In any event, there's info on the page about the founder being a winner of a Noble [sic] Prize, but the name is not listed at the official list. Sounds like a load of hoo-hah to me. But what do I know? Can someone else take a look? –RHolton≡– 03:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've had a look, and I agree. The only potential truths (AFAICT) are that the ensemble exists(ed) and that Tupac was part of it - and that information elsewhere on the internet may have been sourced here. The rest of the article is bunkum - it refers to a non-existent 'Noble' laureate who changed his name sometime between May and now, and Compton and Beverly Hills (when the troupe was/is apparently in Harlem). Is a hoax banner in order? I've left a message for User:Itapp on his talk page. Natgoo 17:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cara Hyder

Would every one not agree that Cara Hyder of springfield Mass is pretty?

How romantic of you. Unfortunately the RefDesk is not for anonymous love letters. Still, it's cute, so I'd suggest to the rest of you guys to allow this one just this once. Loomis 05:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Hard to tell, without seeing a photo of her... --Richardrj talk email 13:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you our good old friend Ben Gurion?[1] I can't help noticing that you inquired about her before.[2] Have you found her in the meantime?  --LambiamTalk 14:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Whitewash

Here is a hard question.

Are there any historical whitewash that is currently still not reveal to the public as a historical whitewash?

The only one I could come up with is

  • Emperor Hirohito was a puppet of the Military Generals during WWII.

211.28.178.86 08:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Japanese atrocities during WW2 are covered up by the Japanese educational system. StuRat 09:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The Turkish genocide of Armenians is actively covered up by the Turkish government to this day. StuRat 09:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The schedule for the washing in the White house shall be available soon on the net (secondary source please!) --DLL .. T 18:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Were Saints Gervaise and Protasus Cro-Magnons?

This is what JBS Haldane claims in his essay 'God-Makers' - says they were dug up by another saint, Ambrose, in Roman times, in a kind of impromptu paleontological dig. Is Haldane just pulling our legs here? Adambrowne666 11:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course. alteripse 21:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh. Adambrowne666 00:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] religion

65.43.135.46 13:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Sign yoWhat do the lettters I N R I mean above the head of Jesus on the cross ?

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see INRI. For future questions, try using the search box at the top left of the screen. It's much quicker, and you will probably find a clearer answer. If you still don't understand, add a further question below by clicking the "edit" button to the right of your question title.
. --Shantavira 13:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brazilian Children's Television

Is the Brazilian children's television star Eliana Michaelichen Bezerra or Eliana Primavera? Or someone else? I notice that there are a HUGE number of Brazilian children's hostesses--Filll 14:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, "Primavera" is the name of one of her children albums, so the second person you mentioned doesn't exist (well, at least in this context). ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 15:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Did the Jews really kill Jesus?

Hey, I know that this is a really controversial topic but I have a reason for asking it. I'm a Jew and everytime me and my mates have an argument, they jokingly tell me that 'the Jews killed Jesus', and I really want to prove them wrong. I know they're only messing, but, what evidence is there - other than Biblical scriptures which lets face it, is hardly reliable - to suggest that the Jews were behind Jesus's death, given that there is hardly any proof which guarantees the man's existence. Ahadland 15:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Why not just tell them to read their friggin' New Testament, which makes it quite clear that the Romans did the killing. Jews didn't use crucifixion, Romans did. Or just tell them to fuck off; saves time. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Jesus and all his apostles and disciples considered themselves Jewish anyway (he was even crucified under the sign "King of the Jews"). It wasn't until the church began accepting gentiles and removing the restrictions of kosher some time later that the Christian sect of Judaism split into Christianity. Laïka 16:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Technically, the Jews did not kill Jesus, the Romans did; however, the Pharisees, who, according to the Bible were corrupt, did the plotting. As for the part where it says the Jews took the blame for Jesus' crucifiction from Pontius Pilate, they were being bribed to say that by said Pharisees. I once saw the Catholic Network, EWTN, giving a program hosted by a Jew, who was explaining Judaism and saying that Jesus was Jewish. Pope John Paul II loved Jews by the way, he didn't have a grudge against them for their having killed Jesus, because they didn't do it. | AndonicO 17:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
"The Jews took the blame for Jesus' crucifiction"...now THERE'S a Freudian slip if I've ever seen one! :--) Loomis 03:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Remember the historical context. Israel and Judah were occupied in the Roman province of Palestine. The Romans allowed local religious law and practice, although they tended to insist that there be veneration of the emporer cult (which led to muliple revolts in Palestine). Israel's king was Herod Aggrippa, who had been raised in Rome and was a non-observant Jew. The chief paranoia of the Romans was revolt, and the Jewish expectation of a Messiah bothered them, because it spoke of a victorious king. The Pharisees were a messianic group, and they were in charge of the Temple administration. Therefore, they were the leaders of the church party, while Herod was official leader of the civil administration. However, there was a Roman governor over the province. Therefore, if you committed a crime in Israel, you went to Herod. If in Palestine, to Pilate.
The Pharisees expected the Messiah. The various Zealotes groups also did. (The Saducees did not, I gather, though I haven't read up on them as much.) Jesus's preaching alarmed the Pharisees because He was being proclaimed the Messiah, and yet He spoke only of a coming of the Kingdom in the heart, not in the temporal state. The Zealotes were opposed, and so were the Pharisees. The charge of performing miracles on the sabbath was presented before the Temple court, but when they wanted a death sentence, they had to come up with something that would interest the secular authorities. Therefore, the claim of being the Messiah would interest Herod, as they would say that Jesus claimed to be a more rightful king than him. Jesus was taken to Herod, and Herod did not find cause, so Jesus was sent to Pilate. The charge was, basically, insurrection. If Jesus claimed to be the king of Jews, then He was claiming to be the real ruler and against Rome.
When Pilate had Jesus crucified, the "INRI" sign was an indication of the crime. You can read it either as a straight legal sentence: "Jesus of Nazareth (claims to be) King of the Jews" or as mocking the Jews themselves: "Jesus of Nazareth (is what the) King of the Jews (looks like)." In either case, His fellow Jews were the ones who had reason to want the death sentence, but the Romans, of course, did the killing. Geogre 17:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well they did, they were responsible for his death. So I dont see why you'd want to prove them wrong, when they are esentially (without being perdantic), right. Philc TECI 17:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • They did according to what? A book written by people with bias, people looking for a scapegoat.Wheres the proof, then I'll gladly say to my friends your right we did kill Jesus. So either they have proof - proper proof, not a book written by people with an agenda - or they stop saying it. [unsigned]
    There is as much evidence to prove that the jews were responsible for jesus's death as there is for his existence, so really, either,
    1. he didnt exist
    2. he did and he was crucified by pontius pilot, by order of an unruly mass of jews.
    The book has no agenda against jews, it was written by jews. Anyway, purely through probability he was probably killed by a jew, as a majority of israelites were jews. Philc TECI 20:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't you notice that the problem is the word we? So, a group of corrupt priests playing politicians plotted an intrigue to get a guy killed who seemed to threaten their authority. They happened to be Jews, but acted as corrupt leaders have acted all the world over in all times. Only they used their propaganda power over the masses to make a lot of inhabitants of Jerusalem stage a demonstration to show support for the death sentence. So, who is guilty for the death of Jesus? Pilate, because he did not wash his hands sufficiently? Yes. The Phariseers because they plotted the intrigue? Yes, too. The Jerusalem demontrants because the supported it. Not really. The whole Jewish community of that time? No, most people probably did not even know about it. And since when is it considered fair to blame a people for the misdeeds of any corrupt leaders they might be unfortunatly have? The Jews as a whole are guilty? What a ridiculous idea. Only the deranged minds of medieval Europe could come up with something like this. Ok, I take back the "deranged mind". That was not deranged. It was a masterpiece of evil propaganda. An even more potent masterpiece than the blood libel or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, because it did not even need to resort to clear lies but just to presented the facts in such a cleverly biased way.
To add about the "independent proof". Well, yes, you may say that the gospels were written by a non-neutral party. But remember that the evangelists wrote them in order to convince fellow Jews to join there sect of Jewish-religion-with-ascended-Messiah. They did not want to blame them, and nothing in the text of the gospels sounds that way. And assuming that Jesus did live, and that he did die in Jerusalem from the hands of other men, it is likely that it was due to the action of somebody present in Jerusalem, and the people there were mainly Jews and a few Romans. On the other hands, the gospels were written from hearsay (None of the evangelists has met Jesus.), and they are reporting here an intrigue, and if you presented this kind of evidence in a court, the judge would just laugh. Simon A. 18:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"They did not want to blame them, and nothing in the text of the gospels sounds that way." So sure you are. How about this noble passage of the bible: "All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!" in Matthew 27:11-26 [3]. I suggest you read your bible with more care, and not forget the more controversial aspects of it. I will grant you that that most of the New Testament defends peace but not all of it. I even believe and defend that Christianity is a largely peaceful religion (and more peaceful than most - My own personal opinion - I like Christianity). But that doesn't mean that all of Christianity was/is always peaceful. Flamarande 18:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Flamarande: Now, I wonder why you jump so angrily on this one sentence which was rather unsubstantial to my argument. I admit that I have not read my gospels careful for I feel no longer as a Christian since a very long time, and I admit that in such arguments, I like to just rely at my recollection of stuff I learned in school long ago. The more interesting question would be whether I am right with the following way of imagining the whole thing: The early Christian communities were a minority and were looked at as we today look at sects. People might have considered them as either harmless wackos (the majority, I imagine) or dangerous wackos (the Pharisees probably). But I'd say that they were obviuosly harmess because they were powerless, and only later, from Constantine onwards, Chrstians has the power to be unpeaceful. Now, as my personal opinion about Christianity is not as positive as yours (I doubt that it is "largely peaceful", way to many wars have been waged in the alleged name of the Christian god, and the idea that this is unjustified is quite recent, and did not exacly come from within the religion.) I'd like to blame medieval Christianity for all this stuff, and not already Matthew's wording. But this, of course, is more a matter of taste. Simon A. 14:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This is one of the greatest whitewash in history!!! It goes like this:

  1. Jesus was a violent jewish terrorist who wanted to kill Romans (kinda like Osama today)
  2. Romans caught Jesus and executed him.
  3. The "christians" then a wacko jewish cult, had lost the support of the Jews and is rapidly losing its own members
  4. So the "christians" took on a different tactics and targeted the Romans for their new members recruitment drive
  5. So they whitewash history by portraying Jesus as a peaceful man and the JEWS as the christ killer. The new Roman members would love this!!!

It is not strange that Pilate who need no reason to kill anyone who disrespect the rule of the Roman Authorities would listen to the useless political banter of the Pharisees. Saying that "you are a messiah" would get you killed by the Romans even if the jewish religious authorities totally supported you.

Matthew chapter 10 (Does this not sounds like the words of Osama bin Ladin)

34 Do not think that I have come to bring peace on the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

35 For I have come to set men at variance: a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;

36 And a man's enemies will be those of his household.

37 He who loves father or mother above Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter above Me is not worthy of Me;

38 And he who does not take his cross (How the hell did Jesus knows about the cross? He has not been crucified yet!!!) and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.

39 He who finds his soul-life shall lose it, and he who loses his soul-life for My sake shall find it.

In summary, the Romans killed a terrorist (Jesus) but in order to sell Christianity to the Roman Public, the christians had to whitewash history.

202.168.50.40 21:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The "christians" didnt emerge until long after jesus death, he and all of his followers were jews. And had no intention of breaking away into their own religion. Philc TECI 21:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
That's why I put them in quotes. "christians" means Jesus fanatics. 202.168.50.40 22:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you want me to go through the new testament finding all the quotes of peace and love etc. Seeing as that would no doubt amount to over a thousand quotations, and you have found a measily 7 that could be interpreted to mean the contrary. Its pretty obvious what Jesus's intentions were. He obviously was not an extremist terrorist involved in a huge cover up, see occams razor, for why pretty much all conspiracy theories are crap. Philc TECI 22:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you not know the meaning of the word whitewash. Of course, you would find tons of quotes of love and peace in the New Testaments. That's what whitewash means. 202.168.50.40 22:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Well if they whitewashed it why the hell did they put these quotes youve found in there!? You've obviously misenterprated them, whoever is right. The simple fact is your deluded, and every post you make, i have to completely rethink wether you're actually serious, or taking the piss. Philc TECI 22:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Ask yourself this question. "Apart from Christian sources, are there other historical sources about Jesus that states that Jesus was a man of peace?" 202.168.50.40 23:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Are there any sources anywhere at all that state that Jesus was a man of war? I know of none (but then I never claim to know everything). Flamarande 23:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the Koran of Islam mentions jesus as a miracle worker sent by allah. A man of peace to do allahs work. So unless you feel like severely complicating yor theory youd better be quiet. Philc TECI 17:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
But if this was a murder mystery I would be very suspicious of some of his last words: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" spoken in RP King's English of course.MeltBanana 01:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually the last words of Jesus are quite unsure. Were they:

  • "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." Last words according to Luke 23:46 : "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." (KJV)
  • or "It is finished." Last words according to John 19:30 : "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up his spirit." (KJV)
  • or even "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabacthani?" (God, God, why have you forsaken me?) The last recorded words prior to his death in the books of Mark and Matthew. (Mark 15:34 & Matthew 27:46) Flamarande 01:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

People, I don't mean to be rude, but I think we're straying away from the topic here. The question is What evidence is there to support the claim that the Jews killed Jesus? Could somebody please help me find some unbiased evidence that supports these claims? And if there is none, could you answer my question: Why do these claims still exist? Were people looking for a scapegoat or something ridiculous. Because, I don't know about you but, one claim that has ended in thousand of years of persecution and even genocide, is a little daft, particularly if no such claim can be proven. Am I right? Ahadland 09:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC) 09:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It is rather difficult not to stray off topic when faced with an unanswerable question. There is a lot of evidence for all sorts of opinions about Jesus but none of it unbiased. Quite a few people do not even believe Jesus existed and to them questions of his death as as significant as whether Voldermort killed Harry Potter's parents. Such questions are bound up with faith, it often doesn't matter if the claims are provable only that they are believable. Also it is not so much the case that one claim has caused so much agony, as the other way round, so much agony has been ascribed to one claim. People do terrible things but they like to have some kind of reason for what they do, however flimsy. Whoever killed him can be thought of helping him fulfil his destiny and of course an important part of Jesus' teachings were about forgiveness. And if you want facts to disprove what people say to you, all you really need is that fact that, however much in jest, they are relying on 2000 year old rumour and bigotry. MeltBanana 15:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Look, If you believe the bible about Jesus' existence, why question other parts of it. Philc TECI 17:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Although we believe the Bible, we do not accept responsibility for killing Jesus because some book said we did. It is illogical and irresponsible for everyone to put the blame of Jesus' death on the Jews given that there is no irrefutable evidence to support the claims. Surely any reasonable Jewish person - such as myself - would see a right to defend themselves here?
Although we believe the Bible and some book, you cant downplay and uplay the same thing in the same sentence. If you believe the bible you believe it, and if you dont you dont. You cant claim the existence of jesus as irrefutable, and then discredit the only record of his existence. Philc TECI 20:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the point, Phil. First off, the Romans were in charge, so "the Jews" weren't in any sort of position to make any orders. It was the Roman authorities of the day that had exclusive authority to carry out any crucifixion. Yes, certain Jews wanted Jesus dead, and did their best to convince certain Romans such as Pontius Pilate to order the crucifixion. Certain other Jews, his apostles in particular, obviously didn't want him killed, just as, I would imagine, certain other Romans.
Now what is the modern day collectivity that best describes the decendents of the ancient Romans? (The ancient Romans being not simply the citizens of the city of Rome, but rather the citizens of a larger area that had Rome as its capital)? The Italians of course. Since the Romans bore at least as much responsibility as the Jews in Jesus' crucifixion,(and I don't think anyone really disputes that,) it would therefore seem just as appropriate to say that the Italians killed Christ.
But who would go around saying that the Italians killed Christ? Yes, certain ancient Italians killed Christ, but should the whole nation be identified as having killed Christ? Did, for example, "the Greeks" kill Socrates? Did "the Hindus" kill Ghandi?
In any case, I know you meant no harm Phil. And I'm sure you weren't taking into account the real problem, that is, that the basis of so much of the suffering of Jews throughout history was predicated on the whole "the Jews killed Jesus" idea. I'll always maintain that you're a decent, good guy. :-) Loomis 01:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • If you look at the issue from a spiritual/theological view point all of humanity killed Jesus. Now, if we look at this further who truly cares who forced Christ up Golgotha, because he rose up three days later. -- Sapphire 01:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Surely it would be more appropriate to look at it from a realistic point of view? Given that we're on about why people perceive it to be the fault of the Jews
From my point of view, it was jews that killed him, but completely seperate from the jewish faith, and no modern jews should be heald responsible, but also the people who killed him were israelis, middle eastern, part of the roman empire, probably mostly men, from the northern hemisphere, from a meditarranean country, etc. I have no Idea why people remeber the jewish part more than any other, as none of it has any bearing on the modern day at all. Philc TECI 17:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Thinking it over a bit, I'm not quite sure I'm completely comfortable with that answer, Phil. Loomis 21:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sex in Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse

There is a sex citation in a Donald Duck's or Mickey Mouse's story (or cartoon)? --Vess 16:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)--Vess 16:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it, it's a kid's show remember. | AndonicO 17:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
If you refer to some explicit reference to the sexual act, I doubt it has found its way into any officially released works by Disney. 惑乱 分からん 17:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a "Sex in Disney" discussion directly above, under October 14th... AnonMoos 22:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

For cartoon sex, try Fritz the Cat. StuRat 03:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
God, that brings back memories ... good ones, too. JackofOz 11:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid to ask... :-) StuRat 16:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not. :-) Loomis 23:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cloaked in glory

The term cloaked in glory was from a novel written by 3 West Point Cadets describing a day in the life of a cadet. Fictional character's last name was Peeps, I believe. The other cadets were referred to as "wife" and "wife2" I can't find title. Thank you very much <e-mail removed>

That's not where the phrase came from--Google it--but more info is needed to identify the book. -THB 23:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] lawyers

how did Shakespeare feel about lawyers?--64.12.116.72 17:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to the famous Sakespearian quote which went along the lines of "First thing we do, is kill all the Lawyers"...or something like that. Unfortunately my knowledge of Shakespeare is not what it should be, and as such I can't recall which play it's from. However, what I do know is that that quote has often been misinterpreted as meaning that Shakespeare had a negative view towards lawyers. From what I understand, this is a common misconception. Apparently, this line was spoken by one of the villains in the play who apparently desired to provoke some sort of state of anarchy or chaos. In the mind of that villain, killing all the lawyers would be the obvious first step. My apologies for my only vague familiarity with the whole thing. Perhaps another editor can fill in the blanks, as well as confirm that I've got the whole thing straight. Loomis 19:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" - Dick the Butcher, Henry VI, part 2, Act IV, Scene II. Dick is a comic minor character, and a follower of the popular revolutionary Jack Cade. The remark is part of a long list of increasingly absurd suggestions about the utopia which will follow the revolution. So essentially, Loomis is right. Cheers, Sam Clark 20:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
A tiny bit more can be found under Lawyer_joke#Anecdotal_history. ---Sluzzelin 23:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, the "kill all the lawyers" bit is undermined inside the play, but Shakespeare's general attitude toward lawyers was not favorable, nor very unusual. In general, lawyers are presented as pettifoggers and contracts as straightjackets. This view was commonplace. About one hundred years later, John Arbuthnot would sum up public sentiment on law by entitling one of his John Bull pamphlets, Law Is a Bottomless Pit. The general objection was that legal proceedings were scholastic, that they could go on for years and years. Additionally, in a highly Christian nation, the idea that one could argue either side for a fee was automatically compromising to the character. Philip Sidney, Edmund Spenser, and Christopher Marlowe similarly expressed hostility to the "endless" law and ethics of lawyers. This is not to say that they didn't, of course, love the lawyers on their own sides. Geogre 14:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious freedom

In the UK , a british airways employee was not allowed to display the cross openly, it being a sign of religion. Why is there such remarks stifling the religious freedom? And the Muslims are not allowed to wear the veil?

Whats the cause for all such disputes? WHere is the freedom of expression?[kjvenus]

Religion equals trouble. More religion equals more trouble. 202.168.50.40 22:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the dispute was over a BA uniform rule that jewellery can only be worn under, not over, clothes. She was told to tuck it in and took unpaid leave rather than comply. BA say she hasn't been suspended.[4] One might consider the rule to be a bit on the pernickety side, but on the other hand she seems to be a fundamentalist attention-seeker exploiting the current controversy about Muslim headgear. --Nicknack009 22:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
So far as I'm aware, there's no law against Muslims wearing any degree of veil in the UK...?  David Kernow (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Religion is the Fast Food for the mind. Cheap to acquire, easy to understand and totally delicious. I love religion and so should you. The idea that my freedom to consume the intellectual Fast Food of my choice should be limited is an affront to my dignity as an intellectual consumer.Ohanian 07:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that religion equals trouble. But I also want others to leave me my beliefs, so I should not interfere with theirs. A big problem here is that when people talk about muslim veils (for example) they talk about muslim veils, not about veils in general. In some German state a law was passed that teachers were not allowed to wear a religious headdress. Everyone understood that this was aimed at muslims. It took a court ruling to determine that this also applied to nuns. DirkvdM 08:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Religion is trouble but one needs faith to fight impatience. Each individual has the right to practice one's faith on a constant basis and without any external intervention. Faith is a must to fight impatience and racism. [kjvenus]

Thank you so much, Ohanian. In think I understand 1,000,000 times better religion with your true words (last time I went to a fast food six months ago it was with the kids). --DLL .. T 18:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't completely agree abouit "intervention", basic general religious freedom should be given, but I think that in most cases the legal system should be held as more important than religious freedom if there's colliding interests. Of course that would require a certain amount of democratic freedom in the political system, to begin with. 惑乱 分からん 22:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How does one go about initiating a romantic relationship with a celebrity?

I mean, how do people who get to go out with celebrities get to meet them in the first place? There is a woman I see on TV almost on a daily basis (an actress) that I really do fancy but I have no idea how to get in contact with her. I just want to be able to write her a letter telling her that I'm her #1 fan and about how much I love her but I can't even seem to find an address to write to. She's single at the moment and I'd be heartbroken to read in the papers that she's paired off with another man before I get the chance to tell her how I really feel. It's like people on TV are surrounded by a wall of steel or something. Please help! --BobTheBull 22:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe she trying to protect her privacy, and by the sounds of things, people like you make it necessary. Philc TECI 22:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Another numero uno fan. It must be every actresses' worst nighmare. White Guard 00:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am going to assume that you are a decent, rational person.

1) As she doesn't know you, you must ask yourself why she would want to go out with you.

2) You must also ask yourself how she would be able to distinguish you from a psycho stalker.

Now, to answer your question. "How does one go about initiating a romantic relationship with a celebrity?" Simple: become a celebrity yourself. After you have achieved something notable (and praiseworthy) in Business, the Arts, Science, Public Service, Sports, or whatever, and have moved into the same social circles as your inamorata, and you have at least one mutual acquaintance, you'll have no trouble at all. 'Til then, stay the hell away from someone who doesn't know you from a hole in the wall. B00P 04:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, actors and the characters they play (which sometimes includes their "public persona") often do not resemble each other all that closely. While I don't claim to know "celebrities" as such, I have a number of acquaintances who know a semi-famous Australian writer and sometime actor. In her writings, she comes across as super-extraverted and completely outrageous. In person, she is apparently much shyer than you would expect. The woman of your dreams may have little to do with the reality. --Robert Merkel 07:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
The best way is to be a celebrity yourself. Otherwise, if celebrity is the license for the meeting, there is absolutely no chance. I have known celebrities, and they don't appreciate the fact that everyone seems to think they know them, and therefore they get very mistrustful of anyone who either has nothing to gain (either very wealthy or already famous) or no knowledge of their celebrity (a banker who never listens to music, a person in a foreign nation). Psychologically, it is absolutely, 100%, guaranteed to be toxic if someone wants to meet you because of your fame. It's going to be poison for the lover and the loved. It's a bad idea, a bad practice, and a hopeless thought, because the predicate is either need or illusion. Geogre 14:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This sign of mental sickness is called as celebrity obsession. The best way to relieve urself from this stickiness to one female is to try to deviate ones attention from the mediaworld and try to be an actor oneself. As per Shakespear every person is an actor in real life. U feel u r depressed by the constant media attention that is gripping her on a constant basis. U r developing an obsession that u find it difficult to extricate urself Its like a quicksand and it blocks ur mind. Rid urself of it and outgrow that sickness.

[edit] Is there a "God of Sound"?

I was wondering, is there any specific "God of Sound" in any mythology? I'm not talking about gods of music, but sound in general. Gods about particular senses would be pretty cool to know as well. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 23:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Echo is a possibility. pschemp | talk 02:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Echo... Not a god, but that's a good one. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 05:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Apollo was the god of music. AMP'd 02:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Like I said in the original question, I'm not looking for gods of music. Thanks anyway. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 05:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Saraswathi, a goddess of knowledge and music and speech. Shiva sometimes carries his damaru or damru (two different articles in WP), a drum representing the primeval sound of the universe. ---Sluzzelin 03:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, no, I'm looking for more specific things. The ideal case for me would be a god that is attributed to noise, hearing and sounds. A god that was attributed to the sounds of a thunder alone would work, but not a god of thunders in general (because other concepts - fire, energy, light - would be with it). The damaru\damru concept is a pretty good one, though. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 05:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

How about Palongawhoya from a Hopi tale of creation:

Next, Sotuknang goes to Tokpela, the First World, and creates Spider Woman, "who was to remain on that earth." In her turn, Spider Woman takes some earth, mixes it with her saliva, and forms twin spirit beings. Each twin is assigned a specific role. The first spirit being solidifies the earth substance into the great mountains and the more pliable lowlands, and the second spirit being, named Echo, is placed in charge of sound. The whole universe becomes an instrument for carrying messages to and from the Creator. Finally, the twin spirit beings take up their permanent positions at the north and south poles, ensuring the orderly movement of the earth mass.

MacDonald, Andrew; Gina MacDonald, Mary Ann Sheridan (2000). Shape-Shifting: Images of Native Americans in Recent Popular Fiction, p. 41. 

Jung also connects "God of Sound" to creation from a schizophrenic's poetry:

When the Eternal first made Sound
A myriad ears sprang out to hear,
And throughout all the Universe
There rolled an echo deep and clear:
All glory to the God of Sound!

Hinkle, Beatrice M.; C.G. Jung (1916). Psychology of the Unconscious, p. 53. 

...or maybe he does, "The reader wilt recall that in the preceding chapter the following chain of synonyms was adduced: the singer-God of sound—singing morning star—creator—God of Light—sun—fire—God of Love." (p. 95) There's also Orpheus, tho not a god. EricR 06:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

check out nada yoga, shabda yoga and bhava yoga - yogas concerned with sound at following website : //www.yoga-sampoorna.org/english/voies_nada.htm
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/f/Wikipedia%7EReference_desk_archive_Humanities_2006_October_16_c7b1.html"