Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 April 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< April 5 << Mar | April | May >> April 7 >
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.


Contents


[edit] April 6

[edit] Sweeping the floor

A child is instructed to sweep a floor. He concludes that to sweep every single bit of the floor- he must sweep it in a systematical way, going up and down the floor, then moving a broom's length to the left or right. By doing this, it is deduced that the chance of sweeping every part of the floor is 100%. Therefore, it is deduced that if the child did not sweep it systematically, there would be a much less chance of sweeping 100% of the floor.

Would this be true, or is it a flaw in our logic? --Howzat11 01:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If the alternative is that the child would sweep at random, then there would be a lower chance than the systematic approach. However, you can probably think of some other non-random, systematic approaches that would work just as well. For example: A) sweep any tile, then b) sweep any tile that has not been swept yet. Right there you guarantee that the floor will be swept after a given amount of time. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail )
Also, this question might be better suited at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 01:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Being systematic only guarentees efficiency. Even random sweeping may end in the floor being completely swept. DDB 02:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course! What was I thinking. After a given period of time, all of those method will eventually get the floor swept. But like you said, some methods are more efficient and get the job done sooner than others. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

See also, Stochastic_process, random walk, Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics. dr.ef.tymac 18:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophical idea?

Is there a phrase in philosophy (or any general study) for the attempt to forcefully shift one's own worldview, and how there's always a certain leap of faith required, beyond the simple tweaking of a couple minor points? An analogy might be living one's whole life underwater, then deciding to take a risk and go to the surface, even though by definition one has no experience to give any sense of what the surface might be like.

This might be equivalent to religious conversion, or even an "emotional conversion" — the way in which, say, an angry or nervous person has to "break through" a certain something (the nameless idea I'm trying to get at) in order to calm down, even though doing so currently makes no sense in his/her mindset. Or the way a nihilistic person might choose to break from nihilism, despite the fact that nihilism should in principle perpetually feed itself. Generally, those who don't believe in free will would no believe in the concept I'm trying to describe either, I would imagine. What major (or minor) philosophers have explored this realm? 66.195.208.91 02:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Howabout the oft-misused and semi-buzzword paradigm shift? Or you can go back to Kuhn's own inspirations in psychology with the Gestalt switch. Or move into more Foucaldian territory with talk of changes in your episteme (though that's a much bigger shift than you are talking about — it's the shift of an entire era of thought). --24.147.86.187 02:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is really what you had in mind, but your preamble reminds me of Louis Althusser's contention that Karl Marx underwent an 'epistemological break' in about the year 1845, shifting away from his earlier roots in German idealist and humanist philosophy towards a fully developed historical materialism. Assuming you accept his contention-and there are many who do not-this is perhaps the best example of a paradigm shift in the history of western thought. Clio the Muse 03:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

@[66.195] For another oft-misused, hackneyed expression (in some circles), look for "shifts in Assemblage point" (see e.g., Nagual (Castañeda)). Since your question did not request an assessment of credibility, none is offered. There are myriad other expressions that the classicists will offer when they respond to your question, and there are myriad others. dr.ef.tymac 03:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is too simple, but the attempt to forcefully shift one's own worldview sounds like doubt to me. Pfly 03:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Doubt is not the shifting of a world view, Pfly: it is the beginning of wisdom. Clio the Muse 09:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Kant experienced some kind of shift that he said was caused by Hume, but I don't really know much about it nor do I know if it was as dramatic as you're saying. Other editors may know about this and explain it better and say whether this applies to the question. A.Z. 04:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

He said that reading Hume woke him from his 'dogmatic slumber' and sent him on the way to becoming a critical philosopher, uniting the rationalism of Leibnitz with the scepticism of the Scottish empiricist, his so-called 'Copernican Revolution in philosophy.' In practice, he simply slipped back into an even deeper sleep, haunted by unknowable things-in-themselves, lying beyond the limits of experience. Clio the Muse 05:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

In contrast, there is the Derrida Stutter, whereby the true believer is not aware of the disparity between sincerely held, but oppositional, ideals. I liked the Logan's Run aspect of your question. I suspect Guantanomo Bay is not yet an adverb DDB 08:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Cognitive dissonance. Vranak

Daimonic. dr.ef.tymac 18:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Gosh thanks for all the thoughtful responses. It seems that there's currently information lacking on the "Derrida Stutter" here, but I'm sure that can be amended — I might do it if I find the time. "Gesalt" and "Daimonic" are fun words to say (all right, and useful ideas to), and I also liked the elegance of the answer "doubt" (though I wouldn't quite equate it with the beginning of wisdom, given that one might start out with too much as well, even if we don't see that often in contemporary thinking).

The inherent issue I'm grappling with, the paradox-that-isn't-really-a-paradox, is the seeming truth that you will never be able to break out of your worldview from nothing but that worldview itself — you can't use pure Xian thinking to become a Zist, the ideological enemy of Xianists. You need to learn about Z, or at least something similar, in some form. This seems to overlap a good deal with the people and ideas y'all directed me to, so thanks again.

PS: What do you mean by "I suspect Guantanomo Bay is not yet an adverb"? 66.195.211.27 02:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect this person meant "adjective" and not adverb, as in "I liked the Guantanamo Bay aspect of your question," possibly meaning something like breaking free from a maximum security prison (of the mind, in your case). Incidentally, check out stuff on relativism if you think there isn't enough doubt going around. Relativists, some may argue, are too sure of themselves, but they often doubt the most basic principles of everything else, even (especially?) science and mathematics. The Mad Echidna 20:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
All right, then. Hmm, paradigm as distopia, food for thought… well, I've never been a fan of relativism per se, at least when people make the mistake of thinking that's all they can be if they have any uncertainty in their beliefs. Anyway, thanx, Echidna. 66.195.210.117 01:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medæval Haircut

Whenever I see peasants portrayed in movies which take place in the Middle Ages or Medæval Times, the men always have the same haircut: sort of a bowl cut across the middle of their heads. A representation of the haircut can be seen on the image on this website(guy in the middle) . I want to know, did the peasants of the Middle Ages really cut their hair like that, or is it just something invented by movie directors? Also, what is this haircut called (other than "Medæval Style Bowl Cut" or the 'bob cut')? Thank you. --Codell«T» 04:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Henry V of England-no peasant he-for the perfect 'pudding bowl' haircut! Charlton Heston emulated this look in The War Lord, a movie from the mid 1960s. And if you have a look at the sixth century depictions of the soldiers in the Basilica of San Vitale in Ravenna, Italy, you will note that the Byzantines have cuts not that different from the English king. The cut in your illustration is fairly typical of medieval styles, though they would be a lot less neat than that of Henry and his royal kin. What might be called the 'peasant fringe' survived until quite late in European history, and was still to be found in the nineteenth century in Tsarist Russia. It should go without saying that the peasants depicted in Holywood movies are a lot cleaner, and far more uniform in appearance, than the real thing would ever have been. If are able to look out a library copy of History Today, (you can call it up online-for a fee!) the May 1999 issue has an article entitled Scissors or Sword? The Symbolism of the Medieval Haircut by Simon Coates. His focus is more on 'upper class' coiffure, but it still gives some useful general guidance on a much neglected subject-the politics of hair! Clio the Muse 07:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
As for what the haircut is called, I suppose you could call it a pageboy. —Angr 14:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou.Codell«T» 17:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheating in a Relationship

1) How common would you guys say is it for someone to cheat in a relationship? Either normal or marriage. I'm starting to notice that many married couples, or just couples, cheat.


2) Is it REALLY a bad thing to cheat on your partner? I don't think it's really possible to say there's such a thing as "good" or "bad" or "right" or "wrong". Everyone has an idea of what their morals are because of experiences or what they've been taught, so it can't be concrete.


3) Psychologically, what drives people to cheat? (for the people that cheat, or want to) Making my own conclusions, I think it may have to do with evolution. We're supposed to have many partners to reproduce with for the safety of our species...? (safe from extinction) I still want another possible answer though. =) PitchBlack 17:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


And just a quick edit, I've also heard a phrase along the lines of "If you don't or can't get something from your partner, he/she's gonna find it somewhere else. PitchBlack 18:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You can easily look up this topic yourself. Please see Infidelity. 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. .dr.ef.tymac 18:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Hmm, I'm not sure that was the fairest response, given that that article is currently in a state of major flux, and really needs a bit of cleanup. It does, however, appear to list statistics for married couples in the United States,. Other statistics might be found by other research methods, but I'm not sure what source will give a reliable number on "general" infidelity.
  • As for "Is it REALLY a bad thing to cheat on your partner?" you might want to check out Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy to see why a Wikipedia article would never give an answer to this. Anyway, if you assume that the cheating involves dishonesty (as opposed to being part of an open relationship), then what you're really asking is whether it's morally wrong to lie; see honesty for a couple of philosophical answers to this (although I think it could probably be expanded a bit as well). My personal, totally-not-Wikipedia-endorsed answer is yes, it's wrong to lie. But it doesn't have to be the end of the world either; many couples seem to forgive, get past that, and go on to live happily. A dissenting opinion might be provided by sex columnist Dan Savage, who occasionally advocates infidelity as a way to keep relationships healthy.
  • Ideas which may help you with your third question may be found at Evolutionary psychology, and hopefully that article will point you to some good sources on the subject you're specifically interested in. \sim Lenoxus " * " 19:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
From an evolutionary perspective it is good for the individual cheater because they can 'hedge their bets' by combining their genes with a more diverse gene pool, so it is more likely that some of their offspring will survive. It is bad for the cheated-on partner because they may end up spending resources helping someone elses offspring to survive. So a cheater promotes their own reproductive fitness while possibly decreasing their partners.
Hopefully someone can provide a good wiki link to some articles on reproduction strategies, i don't know where to look. -- Diletante 21:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
As for #2 it depends on the individual couples — some people have more open relationships than others. But the sure-fire way to know whether it is "bad" or not is to ask yourself, "Would I mind if my partner cheated on me?" Usually when people think in the hypothetical they end up finding ways to excuse behavior when it is their behavior but not their partners (i.e. the common trope of one partner wanting an "open relationship" but being horrified when the other partner starts dating someone else). While one cannot generalize for all relationships, one usual factor in any close romantic relationship is trust, and cheating is usually, by definition, a violation of trust. In that sense I would say it is generally not healthy for a relationship, but I might also add — just to complicate things — that in many cases relationships themselves aren't healthy for individual psychologies. Which is kind of the double-bind for relationships — part of humans seem to not want to be monogamous, while another part does way monogamy, at least in respect to how their partners act. If I were going to generalize wildly I'd suggest that this is the essential conflict at the heart of every relationship. --24.147.86.187 22:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not cut and dry what cheating is. Does one include 'window shopping' as cheating? A newlywed friend of mine was on honeymoon, walking with his wife. They passed a woman in a bikini and my friend walked into a telegraph pole. His wife accused him oif not watching where he was going, but the girl .. It is human behaviour to test boundaries. It is poor form to cross some boundaries. People today live longer within a relationship than they were conditioned in the past. However, some couples manage to survive without cheating. Mental maturity is not acquired in males before age 25, on average. I don't judge immature behaviours, accept in social terms. Society does not encourage monogamy, but beauty worship. A mature adult is responsible for their choices. Some don't choose monogamy. DDB 04:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Central Powers Plans

Did the Central Powers have any plans for the reorganization of Europe for if they had won World War I?

--Shadarian 18:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, Shadarain, you should have a look at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which will give you some practical indicators. The book you need to refer to on this subject is the by now classsic Germany's Aims in the First World War by Fritz Fischer. Germany's chief aim was essentially to eliminate France as a world power and to chase Britain from its traditional role as a power broker in European affairs. A new political and economic unit would have been created, which Chancellor Bethman-Hollweg and others, refered to as Mitteleuropa. By this Germany would have retained control of Belgium, Luxembourg, Poland, the Baltic States and large parts of northern and eastern France directly, and the Ukraine, White Russia and other parts of the east indirectly. It is also likely to have demanded considerable colonial gains, though I do not believe there is any precise information on this particular subject. Austria-Hungary had much less to gain for itself, other than parts of central Serbia and possibly the western Ukraine and Rumania, but would in essence have been an economic and political dependancy of Germany in the said Mitteleuropa. Bulgaria would have attained the borders it formerly gained by the Treaty of San Stefano, subsequently lost by the Treaty of Berlin, and the Ottoman Empire parts of the Caucasus and possibly Egypt, though again I have no precise information on this. Clio the Muse 19:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I've adjusted the spelling of Mitteleuropa above.  --LambiamTalk 19:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Lambiam! Clio the Muse 19:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Supplementary to the above I found this lovely propaganda map [1] illustrating what some sections of the French press feared might be the outcome of the war! The French state still exists, just, but Britain has been reduced to a German colony, the implications of which can only be guessed at! My God, just think: all that Wagner! The horror, the horror! Propaganda aside, there was, I have since discovered, also a plan for Mittelafrika., paralleling that for Mitteleuropa , which would have given Germany control of a huge chunk of territory around the Congo Basin. Clio the Muse 23:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
A millenium of imposed Wagner would indeed have been a horror, but just think of the upside - all that lovely Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Mahler and maybe even Mendelssohn. JackofOz 04:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I could take Mahler in very large doses, but he was Austrian, was he not? You probably know, Jack, that Mendelssohn was a great favourite of the Victorians, including the dear old Queen. Did you also know that when Wagner was in London he would only conduct the music of the Jewish composer while wearing gloves? Clio the Muse 05:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, Mahler was born in modern-day Czech Republic (then the Bohemian part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire), but moved to Vienna. And Mozart and Schubert were Austrians too, however the Germans did incorporate Austria into Germany, so under the map you provided there would have been no distinction made - they would all have become propagandised into "German composers". Same for the Johann Strausses and the other Viennese waltz kings. And many, many others.
Mendelssohn was much loved in England, and chose England for the premieres of some of his major works. The German composers have always had a strong following across the Channel (just as English composers like Elgar, Delius and Holst had their early strong following in Germany when England wanted little to do with them). However, listening to, say, Beethoven because you want to is a different proposition from listening to him because you have no choice (even if you love his music). Even the British would have railed at that. JackofOz 05:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Britain's resistance to Ireland's independence

Having recently seen The Wind That Shakes the Barley and read our articles on the Irish War of Independence and on Irish history during the late 19th century, I am left wondering why Britain was unwilling to grant effective independence to Ireland, or to the 26 counties that later became the Republic. When it was clear by 1918 that Irish public opinion (outside of Ulster) was overwhelmingly behind some form of independence and by early 1919 that the British would face violent resistance to their continued rule, why did Britain undertake such a brutal and bloody campaign of repression? Why didn't the British government call for an early truce and the dominion solution that was ultimately adopted in the Anglo-Irish Treaty, a solution that had long since been tried and tested in Canada and Australia? Marco polo 18:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a highly complex issue, Marco, but Britain had a far greater emotional, political and strategic attachment to Ireland than any other territory under its control. In the nineteenth century Prime Minister Gladstone's attempt to grant a measure of Irish Home Rule effectively split the Liberal Party. The Home Rule Act of 1914, the only of three such measures that passed into law, may very well have brought Britain into civil war but for the onset of the European crisis. Neverthless, the measure remained in place, and is likely to have been implemented in whole or part at the conclusion of the Great War, but for the new radical dimension in Irish politics, brought on by the Easter Rising of 1916. In the wake of the victory against Germany few in the British government were immediately prepared to grant concessions to political terrorists, as they perceived the Republicans, instead embarking on a campaign of militant supression, which had the backing of Winston Churchill, among others. A political settlement was finally reached, but with Michael Collins and the less militant section of the Republican movement, which would leave the north under the direct and the south under the indirect control of Britain. On your wider point the concessions granted to Canada after the Durham Report were born, in part, from the failure to make similar concessions to the thirteen Colonies. Wisdom is sometimes born from experience. Clio the Muse 19:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it a mistake to interpret Ireland's current structure as being solely a result of London's decision making. which isn't to suggest anyone has. Ireland's Northern state has not wanted to leave the UK. The separatists (from the UK) have been vocal, but not representative. Overseas support for terrorism in Ireland has not helped issues.

The solution negotiated with Michael Collins was good at the time, but the IRA, whom Collins helped found and train, killed him under orders from later Irish Statehead Éamon de Valera. de Valera later admitted his mistake, but the killings continued. I feel, had Northern Ireland wanted to unify with the Irish Free State, London would have let them. DDB 03:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, as far as Ireland's 'current structure' is concerned, DDB, you might want to look at the page on the Plantation of Ulster for some background information. In Ireland history has the longest of shadows. You are quite right, though, that London would long have conceded the wish of all of the people of Northern Ireland ( a province rather than a state) to unite with the Republic, a move that clearly would have saved a lot of expense and much trouble, if such a wish had ever been expressed. It has not, nor is it ever likely to be. However, it may be that, in the course of time, the process of European integration will supersede history-even history in Ireland. Clio the Muse 08:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the reference, clio, very enlightening. I usually view rulers in terms of their times. Eliz 1st needed to juggle, finesse and occasionally do nothing in order to obtain her goals. James first was in the sorrier position of losing anything he touched, unless he became a despotic tyrant. Still, it doesn't excuse modern people who hearken back to excuses they know little of, and are unrelated to, so as to justify their petty extortions. DDB 09:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chak De

This question applies to Punjabis only. What does "Chak De" means in Punjabi?

You might be better off at the Language desk. \sim Lenoxus " * " 20:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
You can try the Language Desk, but we rarely have respondents who speak Indian languages. A more fruitful approach might be to contact one of the people in the list of Wikipedians whose native language is Punjabi with this question. Marco polo 20:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a gesture along the lines of a high five. No, I do not speak Punjabi, but I asked a friend who does! Clio the Muse 01:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus' crucifixion

If Jesus was crucified, I have a few questions about it. My first is, why did the Jewish people, allegedly, call for his execution? Second, why did they choose crucifixion over other forms of death? My last question is to do with Jesus and not his execution. Why do people believe he was capable of performing things that are seemingly impossible; for example, walking on water, or feeding the five thousand with just a few loaves of bread. Forgive my ignorance, but it all seems a little far fetch'd. This question is from a Jewish person, who has a limited understanding of Christian doctrine --HadzTalk 20:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Jesus was crucified by the Romans, not the Jews. The Jews had no right to capital punishment, only their Roman overlords had that right. Corvus cornix 20:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
So, why are Jews labelled the Christ-killer --HadzTalk 21:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Corvus cornix is right that, according to Christian scripture, Jesus was executed by the Romans, who often used crucifixion as a means of execution. However, according to Christian scripture, the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, was urged to do so by Jewish elites, particularly the Sanhedrin, who saw Jesus' following as a threat to their power. In the scripture, guilt can be assigned to both the Roman governor and the Sanhedrin. Interpretation of these passages has shifted over the centuries. Some have suggested that early Christians blamed Jews in general as a way of distinguishing themselves from the Jewish religion, from which they had broken away, or as a way of currying favor with Rome during and after the Jewish-Roman wars. Modern Christian scholarship has generally rejected blaming Jews for the death of Jesus and instead see his execution as the fault of all humanity, for whose sins Jesus is sacrificed. This makes sense in the context of the doctrine that Jesus' resurrection and message of forgiveness is a sign of God's forgiveness of humanity for sin. As for the miraculous stories, most mythical founders of religions have fantastic stories associated with them. Fundamentalist Christians see these stories as literal truth, while most mainstream theologists see them as metaphorical. Marco polo 21:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) According to Matthew 27:11–26 – which many Christians believed or believe to be the word of God, or inspired by God, or in any case an accurate historical account – when Pilate offered the crowd a choice between Jesus of Nazareth and a "notorious prisoner" named Barabbas, the crowd, persuaded by the chief priests and the elders, chose to have Barrabas released and Jesus crucified. As to the ability of Jesus to perform miracles, wouldn't it be stranger if God could not perform miracles? After all, most Christians believe that Jesus was God. See further Christian views of Jesus.  --LambiamTalk 21:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
(also after edit conflict) They are no longer called Christ-killers by anyone with a fair view of history. Pope John Paul II apologised to the Jews for the persecution they suffered over 20 centuries at the hands of Catholics. In Christian theology, it was essential for Jesus to die in order to fulfill the prophecies about the Messiah, so blaming the instrument of that death was always problematical. As for the impossible things Jesus is said to have performed, these come under the category of miracles. They have no scientific explanation, so one either simply believes he had such supernatural powers and he really did do them (after all, he is said to be the Son of God, that is, God himself in human form), or one does not. JackofOz 21:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As for why people would believe in miracles then, this was before the rise of science, and people would believe just about anything. Moses, if you recall, not only performed miracles, but also met an Egyptian priest who performed miracles (turning staffs into snakes). Moses, however, was able to perform more impressive miracles, which supposedly showed that his God was stronger than the Egyptian gods. Another possible interpretation is that the Egyptian priests were faking their miracles, but this also suggests that Moses would have known the same tricks, having been raised by them. StuRat 00:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Miracle#In Japanese philosophy. Vranak

Hadz, the Easter story forms the basis of much Christian faith. It is also an expression of fulfilment of Old Testament doctorine. What the others have written so far is valid. We know some facts regarding the crucifixion that sheds light on the story, from a modern perspective. Most people crucified suffocated, as their feet did not support them. However, when Jesus died, a roman soldier opened him with a spear, revealing blood and water. When a person suffers a major heart attack, their blood can seperate under the centripetal forces to blood and water, which is a nineteenth century discovery.

While no sane person blames Jews for the crucifixion, there is a suggestion that those tribes present have been cursed. I understand that most Jewish peoples today are decended from tribes that had migrated away from Judea before the crucifixion. Migrating to Russia, before spreading to the rest of the world during the times of persecution from Tsars and Communists. Those tribes that had been present at the time of the crucifixion were dispersed by the Romans throughout the empire. Those Jewish peoples that went to Western European nations endured persecutions so that today, most Jewish peoples have Russian sounding last names. PLO propaganda has it that there are no decendants of Jewish peoples from biblical times, that Jewish peoples of today merely adopted the faith from migrants. Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ movie is a dramatic representation which doesn't explain what happened very well, but which shows the apparent story. DDB 02:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Assigning culpability to the descendants of those present at the Crucifixion (Jews, Romans, authority figures, rabble, et al.) is an issue in itself. Apart from that: the relative proportion of Jews throughout history whose origins were linked to the population of Roman-occupied Palestine early in the First Century would require an understanding of Jewish migration patterns, which are far more extensive and somewhat other than what DDB has indicated. -- Deborahjay 05:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
If the Jews of the 1st century had no right to capital punishment, then why were they able to stone people to death? Dead is dead, whether by crucifixion or stoning. See Saint Stephen as well as the woman Jesus is reported to have saved by saying "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone (John 8:7)." Edison 04:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Edison, Romans tended to allow civil administration. Death by stoning was for certain offences like marital infidelity, which wasn't an issue Roman civil administration needed to involve itself. Jesus was accused of insurection, Barrabas accused of theft. Both capital offences. Well done Deborah for those references. They are appropriate, and I approve. DDB 06:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Jesus's miracles: Yes, Jesus (allegedly) performed miracles, but according to Devarim 13, miracles can come from other than God.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 21:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)