Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 September 16

< September 15	<< Aug | Sep | Oct >>	September 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.

Christianity and marijuana

What is the view (or the views) of Christianity on the recreational use of marijuana? 71.31.155.14 01:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Christianity isn't exactly a unitary religion; there are many thousands of denominations, many of which oppose all drug (and alcohol) use, and some of which have no stated opinion. I doubt there are any mainstream churches that favor cannabis use, but there are probably some congregations, somewhere, that do. See also Judeo-Christian spiritual use of cannabis, although that article is, after all, on spiritual use. In conclusion, marijuana use certainly isn't outlawed in the Ten Commandments, as some Bible-thumping anti-drug activists might have you think. (Oh, and thanks for signing your comment.) Picaroon9288 01:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Christianity is a bit more complex than a simple reading of the Ten Commandments. --Dweller 11:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

After edit conflict (which renders part of my answer moot):

There are divisions of Christianity that forbid all intoxicants, but I think in general cannabis would intersect with Christian rules in three areas:

1. Temperance, which would suggest that pot would be OK in moderation;
2. Concerns with anything that might induce a Christian to sin in other ways (like having casual sex while drunk, or indulging in gluttony while high);
3. Whether or not breaking, or abetting others in breaking, conventional laws is a sin.

--Anchoress 01:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Just an example: Here is a BBC report from 1999 on what Richard Holloway, Bishop of Edinburgh and Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church, had to say on the matter.---Sluzzelin 03:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Some Chrisitians would find medical usage acceptable but I think nearly all Protestants and Catholics would use Scriptures that speak against drunkeness to condemn the practice. Here is an extensive Crosswalk Forums series of postings on the subject: http://forums.crosswalk.com/m_1326260/mpage_1/tm.htm CyberAnth 05:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is true. In Ephesians 5:18, Paul says "Do not be drunk with wine, for that is debauchery..." - so it is difficult to imagine that he would then say "But it's OK to get high". BenC7 06:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Dare I say this? I dare...except the Unitarian Universalists who'd invite you into the hot tub and ask you to pass the joint. Durova 05:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Most Christians do not consider "do not be drunk with wine" to be a prohibition against taking wine at all. Some might consider that cannabis in moderation was OK if it were legal. 205.211.164.226 16:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Depends what the law of the country in question is as well. If it's illegal, then God would expect Christians to uphold that Earthly law. 82.152.197.131 19:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Program

Whats a free program to use to make an avi movie of image slideshow and maybe add some music? - Tutmosis 01:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This belongs on the Computing Ref Desk. StuRat 08:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, humanities is the wrong place. --Proficient 03:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Common Article III of the Geneva Convention

"This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court's ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article III of the Geneva Convention. And that Common Article III says that there will be no outrages upon human dignity." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-2.html#

• My question is which Geneva Convention is he talking about? There are several Geneva Conventions. I am looking for the complete text of "Common Article III"?--Patchouli 03:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. Complete text here. - Nunh-huh 03:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Does "Common Article III" mean "Part 1: General Provisions, Article 3"?

Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

--Patchouli 04:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

PRESIDENTSHIP

United staes of America presidentship for the years of ???

List of United States Presidents. StuRat 07:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the word is "presidency." B00P 10:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Blackjack Pershing

69.210.49.20 12:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)←I would like to know the validity of what he did when in the Phillipine Islands: Details on what he did to stop the problem with Islamic guerillas. I have heard that he captured 50 of them and shot all but one. That one was released after he watched the other 49 being buried with the entrails of swine. Bill69.210.49.20 12:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.htm MeltBanana 12:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

what is the irish meaning of the name TirNa

my sister just had a daughter and she named her TirNa she said that it means country in irish but i cant find that meaning anywhere my husband could only find references to pubs and beer i would just like to know the actual meaning thanks for your help

fyi the middle name is karigan or some spelling close to that not exactly sure about its spelling but the first name is spelled exactly as i have typed it but if you have any meanings to the middle name they are welcome too

once again thank you for your help

see Tír na nÓg, Corrigan (and Korrigan). Tír means "country", the -na- is just the article. dab (ᛏ) 16:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

i.e. it means 'Land of the'. ColinFine 11:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Legend of a king and capital punishment

I was looking for a story (Greek? Persian? Eh?) that tells of a criminal brought before a king for murder. The king releases him, the guy kills again, and is again brought before the king, who responds something like: "He killed the first man, but I killed the second." 70.240.118.254 16:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Daniel

Not sure of the origin of the story, but sounds like it could just be a more illustrated version of the proverb: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Loomis 17:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Acts of Parliament of the English Parliament 1650

where will I be able to find a List of Acts of Parliament of the English Parliament in the year 1650?

You could follow the link I made ^ MeltBanana 18:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There are no acts for the dates i need thank you anyway.

The Rump Parliament was in place at the time, and our article on it mentions two Act of 1650: an Adultery Act and a Blasphemy Act. Warofdreams talk 19:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

thank you, the reason I ask is that I have two genuine acts of parliament Documents, printed by Edward Husband & John Field Printers to the parliament of England in 1650. They are as follows:

1) An Act Giving Further Power to the High Court of Justice 27 August, 1650 (it has two pictures. One of the seal of the commonwealth)

Three-pages (complete) In good, clean condition,Size: 27cm by 18cm. Their numbers are 997 - 999

2) An Act for Setting Apart Tuesday Eighth of October, next for a Day of

Publique Thanksgiving

Together with a Narrative and Declaration of the Grounds and Reasons thereof (Relates to Cromwell's march into Scotland, the battle at Muscleborough etc.)

Four pages, It looks as though it has the last page missing. In good, clean condition size. 27cm x 18 cm / I have been told that they are from a larger volume. In 1650 they would print each act and bind them all together in a big book.

I am trying to research where they came from.

Kind regards Sue

It's conceivable that they weren't printed in the same year that the Acts were passed. --Dweller 22:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason you won't easily be able to find a list of these Acts is that, officially, they don't exist - according to the table of statutes, there were no acts passed by Parliament between 16 Cha. I c. 38 (the Attainder of Earl of Strafford Act 1640) and 12 Cha. II c. 1 (the Parliament Act 1660). This is because acts of the Commonwealth were made without royal assent, and so could be quietly forgotten about after the Commonwealth ceased to exist and the King was back on the throne.

However, even though they're obscure, you can still read about them. Have a look at the Journal of the House of Commons vol. 6; here, for example, is the note of the passing of the first act. Not much, but it lets you get a feel for context. Shimgray | talk | 19:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

OLDY NEWY MAPS

Hi,

Does anyone knowwhere i can find, very preferably online, and for free, modern day format road maps of the uk in any of the years 1989 or before. What i meen is, you know the modern maps like the AA maps and RAC maps with the blue for motorways and green for primary A roads and red for secondary A roads, and so on, what i want is maps like those but with the 1989 roads or before. (THE EARLIER THE BETTER!)

thanks, --William dady 17:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be extremely surprised if you can find anything like that on-line. Even the once very useful www.oldmaps.co.uk website has decided to call it a day. Best bet would be to scour boot fairs, charity shops, the attic, the garage.... Good luck.--Shantavira 18:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I doubt you'll find them online. But there aer always loads in second-hand shops. If you're not in the UK I should try amazon or ebay for used road atlases. Jameswilson 00:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

God and god

Is there really a difference between stating it as God (with a capital G) than god (lower case)? I'm planning on writting a paper on my personal reflection of science and faith and I was wondering if it would be "incorrect" to use it with a lowercase G.. --Agester 20:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to the god of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), then "God" is appropriate as a name. If you are referring to silly deities in general (including Abrahamic god Roman gods, Norse gods, the invisible pink unicorn (bbhhh) and the flying spaghetti monster), then "god" is appropriate. i.e. Write "the god", "a god" "the gods" as lower case, but "God" is the name of the imaginary chap with the beard. — Dunc|☺ 21:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I take great offense at your dismissing Him along with all those other silly deities. Also, in future, please remember that His name is written The Flying Spaghetti Monster, WITH CAPITALS. Thanks. TheMadBaron 18:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Heh. "Silly deities?" "Imaginary chap?" I hope you're a bit more neutral when editing articles ;) - R_Lee_E (talk, contribs) 21:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

"Silly?" How broadminded.  :( User:Zoe|(talk) 03:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the difference between being a generic noun and being a proper name. It doesn't help that in English they are the same word. Russian Christians refer to their god as Bog. Muslims refer to their god as Allah, though it is basically the same deity as the Christian God. --Fastfission 22:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Allah is not the same as or similar to the Christian God. The Quran is very different in the way it depicts the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to the Bible. BenC7 01:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No god was ever named Jehovah per the Wikipedia articla and a lifetime of Bible classes. The hybrid mispronunciation takes the consonants of .

They are basically supposed to me the same Abrahamic god, though. That's all I was referring to. One could say that the God of the New Testament is not the same as or similar to the God of the Old Testament as well, if one wanted to draw certain types of lines in regards to behavior, appearance, intention, etc. --Fastfission 13:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Then why do Arabic-speaking Christians refer to their deity as Allah? Allah just means 'God' in Arabic, it is non-denominational. The difference in meaning is in the context. Natgoo 12:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the nondenominational term for a god in Arabic is illah. "Allah" is a contraction of al-illah, which means the god. --Mr. A. 15:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Russian word for God is indeed Bog; but the Russian word for god is bog. So it's not just an English thing. (Just to confuse matters, the Russian word for year is god.) JackofOz 04:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Does a dyslexic agnostic Russian sit around wondering if there really is a Gob?Edison 05:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I know it's not just an English thing; I thought that perhaps by denormalizing it, it would help them to see around the problem a bit better. --Fastfission 13:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

God's name is Yahweh. Why do allmost all Christian denominations not refer to their God by his name? schyler 00:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You can also refer to him by his title, "God". That also carries with it the implication that "there is no other god", as calling one of them God would otherwise be ambiguous, and would be avoided. StuRat 08:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Because God's name is holy. The second line of the Lord's Prayer says, "Hallowed (honoured, cherished, respected) be your name". Jehovah's Witnesses use God's name (but as "Jehovah") routinely - unfortunately their actions have not resulted in much respect going to God's name by most people. See Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses. BenC7 01:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought his name was Yahweh? Now it's "holy," and then all of a sudden it's "hallowed."Who's on first?Edison 05:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I am so procrastinating by reading the invisible pink unicorn article and flying spaghetti monster article... haha --Agester 03:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Some Abrahamic denominations interpret the commandment: "Thou shalt not use the Lord's name in vain" rather thoroughly. That's why some of us won't even utter the "Y" word (or its equivalent in English, the "J" word, as in the "J-Witnesses"). Loomis 06:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the Bible in Hebrew. God's name isn't Yahweh or even Jehovah (there's no J in Hebrew). He does have quite a lot of names, howewer, one of which is quite close in pronunciation to Jehovah. "All I said was, that piece of fish was good enough for Jehovah"--Dweller 15:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure who that was directed at, Dweller. In any case, I've read the Bible in Hebrew, and the precise word I'm referring to is the "Yud-Hei-Vav-Hei" word, which closely resembles the J-word, except the J would be pronounced as a Y. The Y-word is somewhat less precise, but still, like the J-word, is not meant to be pronounced by Jews, even in prayer. It's for this reason that Jews tend to use the generic "Ha-Shem" when speaking casually, as all that means in Hebrew is "The Name". Loomis 17:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I was responding to several comments, notably those by Schyler and BenC7. Point was, as Edison says below, while there are lots of names for God, Jehovah ain't one of em. --Dweller 06:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok children play nice. The difference between God and god is on is a proper noun ie a name like London or Mary where as god is merely a thing ie table or dog. hope that helps with insulting anyone

Per the Wikipedia article [[Jehovah}}, no god ever had that name. It is a hybrid mixture of the consonants of יהוה = "Yhwh" and the vowels of אֲדֹנָי = "Adonay." "These substitutions of "Adonay"and "Elohim" for Yhwh were devised to avoid the profanation of the Ineffable Name ( hence יהוה is also written ’ה, or even ’ד, and read "ha-Shem" = "the Name "). Most modern scholars agree with the editors of Jewish Encyclopedia of 1901-1906 that when the Masoretes added vowel points to the consonantal Hebrew text, they had not placed the correct vowel points of God's name above and below the consonants of YHWH. Instead modern scholars believe that the Masoretes had placed a modified version of the vowel points of ’ǎdônây above and below the consonants of YHWH to indicate to the Jewish reader that he was to substitute ’ǎdônây for the proper name in reading the scriptures."Edison 20:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying. According to Judaism, the four letters: "Yud-Hei-Vav-Hei" are the name of God, and should never be pronounced. I really don't understand how the word אֲדֹנָי, meaning "Our Lord" fits in. (And I should mention, that word, though less sacred than the J-word, is still restricted to prayer. I really should have used the term "Ado-Shem") Loomis 21:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It fits in because, as Edison explained, the hybrid word which translators read as 'Yehovah' is believed to result from the Masoretes' adding the vowels of 'adonay' (presumably as a reminder) to 'yhwh'. ColinFine 21:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Furthermore, there are other names for God in the Bible, as well as that one. There's also the mystical 72-letter name of God, which does not appear in the Bible, to which Jewish tradition (and Kabbalah, which aren't necessarily the same thing) ascribes enormous power. This name was kept secret from all but a few. --Dweller 06:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Is this a trick question? The vowels of the word being referred to by what I'll say as "ado-shem" are the same as the vowels of the word given to the Y-word. I still don't get it. They're just vowels. All the consonants are different. "Yud-Hei-Vav-Hei" vs. "Aleph-Daled-Noon-Yud". And the vowels aren't even the same. I'm not sure what you all are getting at. Loomis 07:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"God" is a proper noun. "god" is just a regular noun. If you are working under the assumption that the deity is named (or titled) "God", then you capitalize. Any text addressing God specifically should capitalize it. Now, if you are speaking of "gods" or "a god", then you should not. - Rainwarrior 07:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

To throw the cat among the pigeons; has anyone here heard of the notion that the entire text of the Old Testament is the name of God? Adambrowne666 01:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

In a word, no. Where did you hear that one? JackofOz 02:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

To tell the truth, I can't remember. I think it was a movie. Maybe it was π? Adambrowne666 11:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)