Humanities desk
< November 12	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 13[edit]

US Democratic Party primaries and midterm elections 2018 results by counties[edit]

Other than CNN, MSNBC, New York Times and Washington Post, are there any other websites that shows the following primaries and midterm elections:

Florida Democratic Party gubernatorial primary, Georgia Democratic Party gubernatorial primary, Maryland Democratic Party gubernatorial primary, Idaho Democratic Party gubernatorial primary, New York Democratic Party gubernatorial primary, Vermont Democratic Party gubernatorial primary and Iowa Democratic Party gubernatorial primary and Texas US Senate election, 2018 between Beto O'Rourke and Ted Cruz, Wisconsin US Senate election, 2018 between Tammy Baldwin and Leah Vukmir, Florida gubernatorial election, 2018; Georgia gubernatorial election, 2018; Maryland gubernatorial election, 2018; Vermont gubernatorial election, 2018; and Idaho gubernatorial election, 2018? I want to see which counties they got the most votes from. Also, I am interested in these races and primaries because most of the contenders participating in these events were endorsed by Our Revolution. Please and thank you. Donmust90 (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Donmust90: I suggest going to the Secretary of State's website for each state you are interested in. Most should have the per-county vote information you are interested in. For example, here is a page for the Florida election data: [1]. The file it gives you is a text file, you can see the democratic governor results per county. RudolfRed (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prosperity theology in Islam and Judaism[edit]

Has anything similar to prosperity theology ever developed within Islam and Judaism? 73.239.223.56 (talk · contribs)

It sounds like you're talking about Predestination and Predestination in Islam. This item[2] says it is not accepted in Judaism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No they'd mean something like Prosperity theology. Another weird thing Trump seems to espouse but known mainly in South Korea and some African nations I believe. Dmcq (talk) 11:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I would say it's huge in the US. Any televangelist with a megachurch is a proponent of the Prosperity Gospel. Predestination is a fairly different thing, although it can be related (if you think you're predestined to be rich). Adam Bishop (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you see lots of media reports e.g. [3] [4] [5] as well as this well known John Oliver segment [6] which is discussed somewhat in this article Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption. I assume the in relative terms, they're a tiny percentage of American christians but I don't know if there's anywhere that isn't true. Nil Einne (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is one of the theories of Calvinism that you can tell whether someone is one of "the elect" by how well they're doing? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all; this would have broken down in Calvin's lifetime, as many early Calvinist clergymen were sent to France, executed as heretics, and later celebrated as martyrs. In more recent centuries, it wouldn't make much sense, as various incompatible figures (early LDS leaders like Brigham Young, leaders of oneness Pentecostal megachurches, atheists who are really wise investors, etc.) sometimes do really well, and as their theologies are absolutely irreconcilable with Calvinism (plurality of gods, Jesus-only unitarianism, and non-theism, respectively, each of which rejects Calvinist theology of God and vice versa), "doing well = elect" breaks down because Calvinists and any of the others can't both be right. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be part of Calvinism as correctly understood, but it does seem to be part of how Max Weber proposed that Calvinism was popularly understood — see The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Or at least that seems to be the popular understanding of what Weber thought :-). I can't clam to be a scholar of Weber at all, though I do tend to accept his definition of the state. --Trovatore (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see various mentions of Islamic prosperity theology [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] (see [12] for info on the organisation discussed) but I don't think these sources are really using prosperity theology the same way. What they seem to be referring to are proponents of capitalism and economic advancement from an Islamic POV or that there's nothing wrong with being prosperous or it's even nobel for it to be a goal. So there may be some aspects which are very similar. But from what I can tell, they don't include much the elements which give prosperity theology a bad name i.e. the people will be blessed if they give the rich preacher money to buy their 4th jet or buy a larger mansion aspect. Possibly they would include some of the other criticised aspects e.g. accumulate a house and other possessions even if you can't afford it. Note that as I understand it, zakat generally recognises a niṣāb or minimum level of wealth before it's expected, and while there's obviously no agreement on the amount this is, I presume it means there tends to be a difference with tithing among prosperity theology proponents who AFAIK often asked for tithes regardless of how poor the people are teaching it will benefit them in the long run due to god's blessings. Nil Einne (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The central idea of prosperity theology is the idea that the earthly evidence of whether or not you are properly obeying God is your own earthly prosperity; that is if you are following God's law, the rewards will be evident because you're prosperous; if you are not, God will punish you by making you less prosperous; if you aren't prosperous it must be because you aren't following God's law close enough. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, there's some criticism of this in the text of the Bible, i.e. the Book of Job, one of the themes of which is that you can't use your situation on earth as a judgement of your place in heaven; whether or not you are prosperous or not isn't really rooted in whether you are Godly enough. I'm not as familiar with Islamic tradition on this. --Jayron 32 17:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Camel and needle's eye[edit]

Isn't there a New Testament text which says that it easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle [the narrow gate in Jerusalem] than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God? 2A02:C7D:CAA6:A200:4471:4D17:DD5C:D292 (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is: Matthew 19 comes to mind, it's also in Mark and Luke IIRC. Matthew 19 also says "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth...instead store up treasures in Heaven" --Jayron 32 18:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about the gate in Jerusalem is just some nonsense dreamed up by Prosperity theologians (in its most absurd form, the reasoning is that if a camel can fit through it, a man easily could, so rich men can easily get into heaven). The parable is Jesus and the rich young man. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The standard interpretation taught to me at school (Methodist, though with a Baptist RE teacher) was that it was almost impossible for a camel to fit through this supposed imaginatively named gate, and thus it would be very difficult (though not impossible) for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. I've also read a suggestion (which I can not corroborate, though it makes a lot of sense to me) that the word 'camel' (supposedly kamelos in some Greek original) was an erroneous reading of 'cord' (supposedly kemilos – Koine Greek-literate editor needed to confirm or refute!): the analogy of trying to thread a cord through a needle's eye seems much more appropriate. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 00:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not buying it. The literal interpretation of an actual camel and an actual needle is much more in line with Jesus' penchant for hyperbole (i.e. remove the plank from your own eye) to drive home a point, and his emphasis on the need of his followers to abandon all of their earthly connections, including wealth, family, obligations (let the dead bury the dead, etc.) in order to follow him completely seems more internally consistent. The whole "needle gate" thing feels like bullshit worked in later to make it feel more attractive a belief system to potential converts, but such an interpretation seems out of character with the rest of the message of the synoptic gospels. I've heard such interpretations as well, however I've never seen evidence that the "eye of the needle" gate was a thing recorded outside of such a supposed text. It just has the feel of an ex-post-facto thing. --Jayron 32 00:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaand I now see in the Eye of a needle article that Cyril of Alexandria asserted the camel/cord theory in the 5th Century AD, though with different spellings to what I have doubtless mis-remembered :-).

I think we have to be very careful in arguing the interpretation of Jesus' supposed words. There are no contemporaneous records of them, and those we know of seem to have been orally transmitted and only collated in writing some decades after his death, in documents that the "gospels" apparently drew on while adding imaginative narrative framing. There's a lot of scope there for accidental rephrasings and mistranslations: did the 1st-century Aramaic or Koine Greek (depending on his original auditors) word he used really mean the same as "beam" or "plank" in modern English. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.42 (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In which context are we discussing: the one of theology or the one of history? The pursuits have different methods and different intents, so we first need to know which context we are discussing from. --Jayron 32 13:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[unindent] St. Hilary of Poitiers interprets it figuratively: But in the beginning of our book, we have suggested that the pagans are signified by the camel under the guise of John's [the Baptist's] clothing...the barbarity of the pagans is being tamed to obey heavenly instruction. They are entering the very narrow way of the kingdom of heaven, namely, the "needle", which is the preaching of the new Word. [Page 207 of OCLC 861793400.] In the confessional Protestant context in which my life has always been spent, the passage has been taken literally: the rich have absolutely no way to enter by themselves (just as the camel has absolutely no way to go through a needle), and because period Judaism expected the rich to have the best chance of salvation (as they could afford ritual purity, all the sacrifices, etc., unlike the poorer classes), this implies that nobody can live purely enough to reach heaven. Jesus is therefore interpreted as indicating that reaching heaven depends on God's action, i.e. imputed righteousness is necessary. Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Age calendars[edit]

Hello,

The History of calendars has a page from the Bedford psalter. Each day here and in and other Middle Age calendars shows five columns, the first contains some figures, then it's a letter for the day of the week from A to G, the count down to calendae, nones and idae, with their abbr. : nn, ide, kl in col. 4, and at last the feasts and octaves. What do those figures in the first col. mean ?

An example of sequence in Jan. (Fecamp psalter) is : 3, 0, 11, 0, 19, 8, 0, 16, 5, 0, 8, 2, 0, 10, 0, 18, 7, 0, 15, 4, 0, 12, 1, 0, 9, 0, 17, 6, 0, 13, 3. Thank you for an advice, even if it's only fun. --methodood (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See This video. They are Golden numbers, used to calculate the date of Easter in any given year. --Jayron</sp1an>32 16:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you find "xiij" and "xiiij" confusing, see J#History. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lunar month will start January date with the 1 one year, the date with the 2 the next and so on till 19 then 1 the year after that. Of course that's not a guarantee, even at the place and time the Golden number is most accurate small eyesight differences or good vs. fair humidity for a cloudless night of that calendar date could be the difference between the golden number being on the right day or not. The golden number doesn't work anymore though because it's a very simple calendar that's too slow and after over 20,000 lunar months without "unleap" days it's about 0 months and 4.X days late. For comparison the youngest naked eye Moon was 0.6472 days old with extreme eyesight (only naked eye counts for religious calendars), 2 day old crescents are easy if not too high latitude and 3 day old crescents are naked eye in the middle of the day at sea level even in the humid East US just by hiding the Sun with your hand. Only 2.35 days difference so over 4 days error is huge. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all!--methodood (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]