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.
As a native speaker of American English, one of the Southern(ish) dialects, I find the first two to be similar. In my understanding of English, it is as follows: A revolution is, in my mind, when the people overthrowing the government win and establish their own government. Also, I have heard it to be expanded to a peaceful exchange of power, such as a Democratic Party candidate winning against an incumbent GOP candidate (or vice versa). A coup is a revolution, although the people have not managed to establish a firm government, or have not held it long enough to be stable. Essentially, a coup does not become a revolution until the history books deem it such. A mutiny is the overthrow of power on a smaller level, such as sailors overthrowing the captain's power, or any group of people deliberately rearranging the social order of their group against conventions. This would not apply to a government. A riot, to me, is just a mob of out of control people; it is usually violent, without a strategy, and with no clear leaders. To me, a riot implies a clear lack of any kind of organization. Hope this helps. Falconusptc 04:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that a coup is distinguished in that it is carried out by a small group (perhaps acting directly against the heads of the existing government), whereas a revolution implies widespread support (and perhaps large battles between a revolutionary army and the existing government's one). In particular if the existing government's army leaders turn against the government using the army, it is normally called a coup, specifically a military coup. Of course, the people who carry out a coup may choose to describe it as a revolution if they want to be seen as aligned with the general public. --Anonymous, 05:11 UTC, April 30, 2010.
A coup means a military overthrow of the government, whereas a revolution is carried out on a larger scale; overthrowing existing regimes as well as existing social orders and classes. See: French Revolution, Russian Revolution, etc. Of course, some revolutions result in relatively little bloodshed as happened with the Glorious Revolution during the reign of William and Mary.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many died in the Russian Revolution? Does it even count as a revolution, if there were no battles? Edison (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Russian Revolution (s) had more of a long-term effect than the French considering they overthrew an entire system (Tsarism and Orthodoxy) and replaced it with Communism. Read the article to get the estimate for the number of deaths which followed in the aftermath of the Bolshevik's assumption of power. The French replaced the Bourbons for a while with a Directory and Consulate (with Napoleon at its head) only to later accept the same Bonaparte as emperor!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A revolution usually involves completely replacing the existing state. You have a completely new governance system and everything starts almost from scratch. A coup involves part of the existing state seizing control and they usually keep much of the existing structure, replacing just the top part. A mutiny is military people working together to disobey their superiors. A riot is the complete breakdown of law and order due to the public rebelling against the state out of general displeasure. A riot is distinguished from a revolution by the lack of organisation and purpose. --Tango (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Riots are usually short-term affairs, whereas revolutions last until there is a total replacement of the existing government and social orders. Normally revolutions are preceded by both riots and mutinies until the entire system of government breaks down and is overthrown. No revolution can take place without the active cooperation of the military. That was how Tsar Nicholas was forced to abdicate; all his loyal troops had been slain in the early battles of WWI; by 1916 and 1917, the new recruits in the armies and navies were ripe for mutiny. Rasputin's malign influence hadn't helped matters either.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This list should be made a changeable chart, by date, size of spill, alphabetical order, depending on the viewer's need, but I don't know how to do it. Anyone? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Help:Table#Sorting and Help:Sorting. In the future, questions on how to do stuff while editing wikipedia are best asked at Wikipedia:Help desk. These desks are for finding articles about stuff, i.e. stuff that is written in Wikipedia. --Jayron32 03:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See, I knew I'd get an answer! That's all I wanted. You can keep the lecture, dad. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You posted this to the wrong place and you were told where to go in future, by a person nice enough to help you out. I imagine there are more than a few editors to the ref desks who have just told you to eff off to the right place. Wouldn't kill you to say thank you--Jac16888Talk 04:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help. No thank you for the preaching. The "In the future, questions on how to do stuff while editing wikipedia are best asked at Wikipedia:Help desk." was helpful. Even as a 4 1/2 year editor, I find that this place is not always the easiest to navigate. The "These desks are for finding articles about stuff, i.e. stuff that is written in Wikipedia." was overkill, subtle but tangible telling me "to eff off" in your own way. But yes, thank you for pointing me in the right direction. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't overkill at all. You showed no evidence that you knew you were posting in the wrong place. If we don't tell you what this desk is for, how would you ever find out? 212.219.39.146 (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to this[1] the cookie selling started in 1917, so it's possible they were selling cookies in WWII, although one would think their efforts would have been redirected to something that would support the war. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 04:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this article about the Girl Scouts’ founder, Juliette Gordon Low, it says: “During both World War I and World War II, Girl Scouts served their country on the home front collecting waste fat and scrap iron, growing Victory Gardens, and selling defense bonds.” Bielle (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or "war bonds" as they were called until after WWII when the P.R. department took over. Every American was expected to participate in the war effort in some way. Things have changed since then. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 06:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will presume you are referring to the Girl Scouts of the USA, as most other organizations are known as Girl Guides. The GSUSA site states "Girl Scout Cookies were sold annually by local councils around the country until World War II, when sugar, flour, and butter shortages led Girl Scouts to begin selling Girl Scout calendars to raise money for their activities."[2] Both the BSA and GSUSA sold war bonds, but not for profit. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 13:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Girl Scout cookies were sold in the US throughout World War 2.They were sold in May, 1942. That year they were sold 48 to a box, in either vanilla or chocolate flavors. They were sold in 1943, with a limit of 2 boxes per customer since a typical council might have gotten reduced amounts of cookies to sell. By 1943, Girl Scouts were also collecting fat in cans with their label on them, were making sandwiches and scrapbooks for USO, were helping with Civil Defense preparations, were selling War Bonds, were babysitting children of defense workers, and were working on farms. In 1943 they also sold calendars for 25 cents, at a 15 cent profit. They sold cookies in 1944, with some districts selling more boxes than in 1943: [3]. In 1945, the cookie sales (concluded beforer the end of the war) had a larger volume of sales than in 1944 [4]. Thus Girl Scout cookie sales in the U.S. continued throughout World War 2. Thus the GSUSA information is misleading at best, in implying that they sold calendars instead of cookies during WW2, rather than selling calendars in addition to cookies. Edison (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read something on the internet that before the Zhou Dynasty, China was ruled by black Africans. This seems really weird cause their are no trace of them left. Is this supported by archaeology and genetics? Has anybody taken a DNA sample of a Neolithic Chinese or someone in a Shang Dynasty tomb? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.113.157 (talk • contribs)
Absolutely not. Likely you were reading a Black supremacy site. Lots of claims like this are made without a scrap of substantiation. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Recent", in that context, meaning about 60,000 years ago. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be sometime before the Zhou Dynasty, now wouldn't it? --Jayron32 06:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After searching for references to a black leader of the Zhou Dynasty, I have found that the claim stems from an old myth and an error of translation. The myth is that there was a leader of the Zhou Dynasty named Shang Li who was conceived when a black bird impregnated his mother. Obviously, this is a myth and not true. Then, Li is translated as meaning "black", but that is wrong. It actually means chestnut tree. -- kainaw™ 11:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I recall seeing somewhere on the ref desk, or perhaps elsewhere on wikipedia, that 'corn' doesn't necessarily mean the sweet yellow kernals that come on a 'cob'(aka maize). Knowing this, when I came across a reference to corn while reading the Koran, I mentally filed it away as meaning wheat or barley. However, I came across another corn reference, but this time it included the mention of "ears":
"Those that give their wealth for the cause of God can be compared to a grain of corn which brings forth seven ears, each bearing a hundred grains."
It's between 2:260 and 2:263 (the Cow/Al-Baqara). My question is: is this an aberrant translation or are wheat and barely also referred to as having ears or is this proof that God exists because he fortold of the future existance/discovery of corn to Muhammad? --flagitious 08:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
In Ear (botany) it indicates the term can be used for wheat and other grains in addition to maize. "Corn", as you may have read, is traditionally the most important cereal grain of a region. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 09:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks. --flagitious 09:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Such confusion is not uncommon. When I was a kid, "corn" was always wheat, and I assumed this is what the Americans on TV shows meant when they said "corn". It was only when I travelled to the USA as an adult, that I realised the "corn" the Americans were talking about was the same thing that I had always known as sweetcorn. It is only very recently, here on Wikipedia, that I find out "corn" is the name traditionally given to "... the most important cereal grain of a region". In light of this, it seems obvious that the Koran is talking about ears of wheat or barley, rather than any discovery of varieties of maize and subsequent proof of god. Astronaut (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Corn means, basically "any small morsel-like thing", and is a cognate to the word kernel, which is the term Americans use when the rest of the world uses "corn", simply because in America "corn" usually means "maize". Thus we have John Barleycorn (who may or may not die), corns on your feet, Corned beef, which refers to the granules of salt used to preserve it, peppercorns. --Jayron32 20:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, corns on your feet have to do with the Latin "corn" meaning "horn", meaning something hard, which actually may be the basis for the seed usage anyway. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Latinate languages tend to use "C" where northern european langauges use "H". It was part of a great linguistic shift that occured in the Indo-European family some time ago. Hence, English "Heart" = French "coeur" = Spanish "corazon". The french name for the English Horn is the Cor Anglais, etc. It is likely that the horn/corn distinction exists for all of the usages of both "horn" and "corn". --Jayron32 21:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Umm. I don't think there is a "horn/corn" distinction. "Horn" and Latin "cornu" come from a root Pokorny gives as k'er- meaning "upper part of the body". "Corn", "kernel" and "grain" (Latin "granum") are from g'er- "grain": there is no connection between the two roots. (I'm using "k'", "g'" for palatalised "k", "g" - I can't find the symbol Pokorny uses) and the etymology of cor anglais is much more interesting than that--ColinFine (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
whenever I see this question, I'm always surprised that people forget about the ubiquitous 'Corn Flakes', which (of course) are made of wheat. corn flakes made out of what American's call corn would likely be fairly disgusting. --Ludwigs2 06:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It started outside the city at the Circus Flaminius, then passed through the Triumphal Arch and ended at the Forum.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article provided gives a lot of details. Thanks Adam; I hadn't realised the article even existed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Around what time next week would the results of the UK elections be known? thanks 121.72.176.153 (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Polls close at 10pm BST on Thursday (2100 UTC). Exit polls which should give a very accurate picture of the results will be released immediately after that. Constituencies will then begin releasing results as fast as they can count them, with the first coming in half an hour or so and the bulk somewhere in the early hours of the morning. Almost all results should be in by the following morning, with the exception of a few logistically difficult (mostly Scottish) constituencies, which might take up to a couple of days, and Thirsk and Malton (UK Parliament constituency), where the election has been delayed for three weeks by the death of a candidate. As for when the new government will be known, with a hung parliament almost certain that's anyone's guess. Algebraist 11:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're really interested in a particular constituency, have a look at the Press Association's list of expected declaration times. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember the last election correctly, the first couple of constituencies to declare usually do it around 11.15 p.m. (there's a couple of small constituencies in the north-east, Co Durham area, I think, who traditionally race each other to get the first results announced). Then there's usually a gap to around midnight, when things start to speed up. If a party is going to get an absolute majority of seats it is likely to happen around 3-4 a.m., though judging from the polls that's fairly unlikely this time. Northern Irish and some remote Scottish constituencies don't start counting until Friday morning, with the last results being announced around 4 or 5 p.m. Unfortunately I've not been able to get next Friday off work, so I won't be staying up all night to watch the results as I usually do! -- Arwel Parry(talk) 16:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, looking at Sam's list of expected declaration times, it appears that Northern Ireland will be counting immediately this time, which is a change from past practice! -- Arwel Parry(talk) 16:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been wondering about the following: Chinese poems, and also other texts, often have a very regular structure, which from the outset does not really make clear whether they are supposed to be read vertically or horizontally, especially if one ignores punctuation marks. example here. Have there been any authors who have made use of this feature by composing texts which can be read both horizontally and vertically (without turning the book first or similar transformations), and still make some sense? Yaan (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible to say that nobody has ever done that, but nobody that is popular has done it in a popular way. It would be extremely difficult. Very little Chinese is a single character. Most words are two characters. Some are three (or more). So, it is only slightly less complicated that trying to put English letters in a rectangular box such that they make sense when reading down and when reading across. It is possible, just not easy to make anything useful. -- kainaw™ 11:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that in classical Chinese single-character words are much more common, so I don't think it is that difficult if one is ready to not write in the vernacular. Yaan (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Classical Chinese, which is single-character, was written long before influence of left-to-write writing was introduced. Take an example like Li Bai. He was writing in the mid 700's. It would be another thousand years before there could be any influence of left-to-right writing. By then, use of single-character writing was already replaced with multiple character writing. There are, in modern times, some people who try to hack together something that appears to be classical single-character Chinese poetry. As such, I am sure there has been someone who has made something that can be read in two (or more) directions. As I said, nobody who is popular has done it in a very popular way. If it were done in a mildly popular way, I would strongly suspect the author to be Japanese writing in what they call Kanji, not Chinese. -- kainaw™ 12:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you would agree, though, that the title of this 1402 map is written horizontally? Yaan (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, that is Korean, not Chinese. Second, horizontal writing was not unknown. Many banners were written in "hengpai" (horizontal writing). If it was left-to-right or right-to-left was not important. According to our article, right-to-left was prominent until WW2. Popularity of hengpai was very low because banners/flags were hung vertically. Europoean influence increased popularity of horizontal banners and, therefore, increased popularity of hengpai. -- kainaw™ 14:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Hanja, and the text would look identical in Chinese anyway and is readily understood by Chinese then and today. The title is written in Seal script, and is read right to left. See Kangnido. --Kvasir (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I once saw a cartoon strip by Gahan Wilson organized into a square of panels, that could be read either horizontally or vertically, with rather different but equally comprehensible results. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I once read a two-way Chinese verse that translated as "Leaves fall when fall leaves.Rhinoracer (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Palindromic poems and sayings has been done in Chinese. Just can't think of an example now. There is my elementary school motto in classical chinese, a near palindrome when read outloud in Cantonese: 爾識真理 真理釋爾 . Came from John 8:32 (Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.) I thought it's the neetest thing. The Chinese Union Version of the same verse is the more wordy prose: 你們必曉得真理，真理必叫你們得以自由 。--Kvasir (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has there ever been a culture that hasn't used North as "up" on their maps? and if not, does anyone know why?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.100.211 (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the word "orientation". Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is still used because the word "septentrionalisation" is a bit of a mouthful. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and mappae mundi in general had east at the top (especially T and O maps. I thought History of cartography might have more info about this, but apparently not...although it does mention some Chinese maps with south at the top. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned in the above link, but in a recent documentary it said the Polynesians oriented their maps with west at the top; apparently because the direction to the sunset was important for their navigation across the Pacific Ocean. Interestingly, the scale used on the map also emphasised the importance of each island to their culture, rather than their physical size. Astronaut (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a map of Antartica, what orientation is it? Up-down? North-South? MacOfJesus (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm intrigued as to what you would use as the axes. I can see that FUNDAMENTALIST <-> INTERPRETIVE/NON-LITERAL might be one axis but what about the other? INCLUSIVE<->EXCLUSIVE perhaps, but you could equally have WORSHIP<->ACTIONS, CONGREGATIONAL<->INDIVIDUAL or loads of other possibilities. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A graph detailing the nutritional properties of nuts and oily seeds.With a multitude (no pun intended) of axes I suppose you could resort to any of the tricks used with other types of comparative data like the one for nuts (no pun intended). or even a triangular or multi-sided grid. Plain vanilla with chocolate chips (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the number of higher beings? Atheism -> Buddhism -> Judaism(*) -> Islam -> Trinitarian Christianity -> Catholicism (all those Saints and angels ;-) -> Hinduism -> Ancient paganism. (*) I count someone who has to cheat to wrestle down Jacob as at most 1/2 of a higher being *duck*. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The political compass article is mostly about liberal and conservative. So you might put Unitarian at one end and Missouri Synod Lutheran at the other end, for example. Or Reform Judaism at one end and Orthodox Judaism at the other. I'm assuming that's what he means by "extremes"? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A pamphlet with pages for a variety of comparisons would suit me well enough. Even a classification table would work. Plain vanilla with chocolate chips (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason Satanism is not included is that even though it only has one "head" he's not ALL powerful. Furthermore, he is not all knowing but he does treat the congregation well, which is kind of an oxy-moron since he is supposed to be bad, ...err for good people. The real problem is that members of the congregation don't get to travel to somewhere else when they die. Also it's not very well organized. Policies are usually great but some of the places picked for meetings can really suck. 71.100.1.71 (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, 71, you'll need to provide sources to back up all your claims about Satanism.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Satanism is actually that it is just a bunch of crap made up by a crazy guy. And while, if you like, that is true of all religions, Satanism doesn't even have thousands of years of tradition to use an excuse. They might as well be Mormons. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd second Adam Bishop's statement if one were to change Satanism to the Church of Satan. I certainly always got the sense that it wasn't really a religion, but was founded to tweak the noses of the Establishment. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to better understand what Adam Bishop means by "They might as well be Mormons." I've read the post several times, and the best I can come up with is that the potency of Satanism's "crap" is increased by it being relatively new, much like Mormonism's "crap." Just wondering if, as a Mormon, I should take offense or not. (Wink.) Kingsfold (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does sound a bit like WP:OR. However, it does provide a few basic variables which might be used to classify other systems of beliefs. Thanks 71. for the pointers. Plain vanilla with chocolate chips (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talking to yourself is supposed to be one of the first signs of insanity, you know... FiggyBee (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's also possible to combine the political compass with a religious one. Christian Left and Christian Right, for example. ~AH1(TCU) 02:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
French (?) people who lost their jobs to machines[edit]
I remember hearing about some people who lost their jobs because of machines. They made clothes I believe, and I think they were French. They then proceeded to bomb the buildings with the machines in them. Jabberwockgee (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's just possible you're thinking of the Luddites, though they were not French and did not use bombs. Algebraist 17:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the Jacquard loom? "... the introduction of these looms caused the riots against the replacement of people by machines in the second half of the 18th century."[5]Clarityfiend (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weavers in France were just as upset about losing their livelihood to machines as those in England. When Joseph Marie Jacquard completed his first machine looms in Lyon, a crowd smashed one of his machines, hanged his effigy and dragged him along the quayside with the intention of drowning him before he was rescued[6]. Alansplodge (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These riots in Lyon (1831) are called Révolte des Canuts ( Canut revolts) — AldoSyrt (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison of railway travel times from central London[edit]
Where can I find this please? It might be an isochrone or isochronic map, but just a list of journey times would do. So far my Google searches have found this http://www.tom-carden.co.uk/p5/tube_map_travel_times/applet/ but only for tube stations, and also an interactive sliding-scale thing centrered on the Department Of Transport. I'm interested in travel times between from about one hour to three hours. Thanks 84.13.187.167 (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The interactive map, where ranges can be selected both for property prices and travel times, can be found by scrolling down the page here - http://www.mysociety.org/2007/more-travel-maps/ They also have London maps to show the differences between using public transport and using a car or bicycle. 92.29.142.124 (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like these people will be happy to generate the map you want, for a fee. Marco polo (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google has failed me on this. Such maps do exist in published reports because I've seen them, but can't remember specifically where. This map of the UK rail network may help identify places where times to London can be checked from, using a site like this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That map, and the other maps on that site also, leaves out many of the small rural stations where the trains usually or sometimes stop. 92.29.142.124 (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised by that comment - certainly in the remoter parts of Wales and SW England the map shows many very small and infrequently served rural stations, so perhaps there is a regional issue. Of course, the map does not show detail within the inset areas (shown by rectangles), which are shown on other maps on that site. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, the map you linked to does show all the stations that I thought were missing, at least outside the boxes. I must have been looking at other maps. 78.151.115.180 (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Antichrist quote... what does Nietzsche mean?[edit]
What does Nietzsche mean when he says "The word Christianity is a misunderstanding. There was only one Christian that ever lived, and he died in the cross". What's the context, exegesis behind this quote? Thanks.--72.178.134.135 (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that one quote, Nietzsche is stating that Christianity (as a religion) is not what Jesus taught or lived by. In his works, he states that Paul (Saul) invented Christianity with Jesus being nothing more than a figurehead. This is often referred to as the Pauline Conspiracy. Nietzsche also states that "faith" doesn't exist. It is a shroud for natural instincts. When a person acts on instinct and doesn't fully understand why, the person claims to be acting on faith. Finally, Nietzsche claimed that God, as described in Christianity, is dead because the stories of God are no longer believable. There is a hell of a lot more to Nietzsche's work, but that is a very small overview related to that quote. -- kainaw™ 01:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I know people who feel God's presence. That doesn't make them right or Nietzsche wrong, but no one (not even Nietzche) has a monopoly on the truth. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Baseball Bugs. Most philosophers' opinions tend to be overrated anyway.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So that's two votes against Nietzsche and for Baby Jesus. I'm sure the OP will find that helpful. 129.174.184.114 (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested in knowing how many people stopped believing in God after reading Nietzche's words. I can accept why a person, whom after much profound thinking, evaluation, and personal reflection, decides to become an athiest (albeit I happen to disagree with atheism); however, I cannot understand how someone could reject God just based on some philosopher's POV.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to note that Nietzsche's quote "God is dead" did not mean that there was no supreme creator. He was writing about Christianity. He was stating that the "God" discussed in Christianity was not the "real God" and that Christianity's God was no longer believable. Most of his writings were nothing more than claiming that the Christian church was a fraud. He wasn't saying there was no God and Jesus didn't exist. He was saying that the Christian church had it all wrong. So, if someone reads his writings and becomes atheist, they've missed the point entirely. The goal is to read his works and become non-denominational. -- kainaw™ 11:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries came about not on account of Christianity, but because of the different denominations of Christianity, who thought their version of Jesus and his writings was the Supreme Truth. It got to the point where an entire new religion could be founded on the basis of one single scripture in the Bible! Didn't Voltaire say of the Englsh that they were a nation "with over a hundred religions and one sauce?!"--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nietzsche devoted a fair few words to how people have and would continue to misunderstand him. This discussion, apart from the first response, only shows to me how right he was on this issue. Vranak (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no, BBB, that's wrong. understanding is never passive. A reader has to reach out and engage a work; if s/he just reads it as though it needed no thought or interpretation, s/he will inevitably miss the point.
with respect to Neitzche and religion, Neitzche had no real opinion about metaphysics, except that he felt that most people were blinded to truth by what he viewed as empty mythologies. He would have respected someone who 'felt God's presence' because feeling that is an experiential act very different from mere belief. God is dead in Neitzche's view precisely because people accept the stories they are handed about God with no thought or reflection. I suspect that Neitzche saw himself as a sort of Messiah-figure, trying to show people philosophical truths but opposed by Pharisee-like Christian authorities who have a vested interest in keeping the masses blind and ignorant. At least, that theme tends to run through a lot of his work. --Ludwigs2 07:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I find annoying about those who profess a profound belief in Jesus, God, saints, miracles, Virgin Mary's tears, etc., will scoff at people who have seen and felt the presence of ghosts. Most religious people do not believe out of genuine conviction, but out of ignorant superstition and fear of the unknown. Try talking to a Catholic priest about the possibility of ghosts, and watch how they freak out! It's really laughable. If something occurs outside the realm of the Church it's not acceptable (in their eyes).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That hasn't been my experience of talking to Catholic priests: the ones I've talked to have tended to be well-educated in the area of religion and metaphysics, and quite willing to discuss the reasons behind what they believe to be true and not true. Even when discussing topics on which we profoundly disagreed (such as the ordination of women), they had obviously considered the topic with care and had reasoned thoughts on the topic, grounded in wide reading on the subject. They listened to my reasoning, and clearly actually processed what I was saying, even if they disagreed. Obviously, experience is going to vary as different priests are different people, but I found a conversation on "what do you do if someone tells you they are possessed by demons or God tells them to do things" extremely interesting, showing a level of careful thought on the subject completely at odds with your apparent experience. 86.178.225.111 (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, priests are people like anyone else. Actually, I did have an interesting chat with a priest about astrology and he conceded that it was a science and not contrary to Catholic doctrine, once I pointed out that astrology merely acts as a guide but does not compel one to fulfill an absolute destiny (which is of course in the hands of God, according to Christianity).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think one thing we can be sure of is that astrology is not a science!92.12.221.133 (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's merely your opinion. Remember modern astronomy derived from astrology.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't express opinions about things you know nothing about. Astrology is not a science; it has never used the scientific method, its claims don't have a shred of supporting evidence (and in fact, have been extensively disproven), and for most "astrologers" it is nothing more than a scam used to make money. Sure, astronomy came from astrology in the same way that chemistry came from alchemy, the heliocentric model came from the geocentric model, and modern democracy came from ancient tribal society, but that doesn't mean astrology=astronomy, or chemistry=alchemy, or heliocentrism=geocentrism, or democracy=tribal society. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dearest IP 99, I've been studying astrology since I was 11 years old, and therefore I damn well do know what I'm talking about. Astrology dates back to the ancient Chaldeans, and I have debated the validity of astrology on many occasions. So before you continue your calvacade on your anonymous high horse, why not register with a proper user name instead of editing with an IP as a shield to hide behind when you fire off your pathetic insults!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have been studying astrology for that long, surely you'd know that:
As I said earlier, astrologers do not follow the scientific method.
Twins born very close in time and location do not show similarities in personality that can't be explained by chance.
Personality descriptions made by astrologers are often seen as accurate because they're so vague and compliment clients to such an extent that MOST people would claim they're accurate, even if the description wasn't made for them.
The long history of astrology is an argument against it, not for it. How many scientific laws have the ancients provided us? Compare this with the number proven wrong by modern science.
BTW, I suppose you don't know that registered users enjoy more anonymity, not less. Anybody can trace my IP, figure out where I live, what my ISP is, and with a bit of underhand dealing, my exact identity. It takes much more effort for me to figure out so much as what continent you live on. So rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks while totally ignoring my arguments, and showing off your ignorance about the anonymity of IP users in the meanwhile, how about proving how astrology is a science? --99.237.234.104 (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the study of priests some are exorcists some are parish priests some are hospital priests some teach and some do other jobs. The exorcist does not wish to talk about his work, the hospital priest cannot talk about his work and all the others cannot be too specific, lips being scealed, etc. If you ask a priest about the ghosts he encountered he may not want to talk about it as it raises memories he would rather forget, or in the case of demons recall them to answer! The study of the stars to tell the future is mentioned in Isaish Chapter 47, v.13. The boundary stones of The Babylonians' show the emblems of many gods, the origins of the signs of the zodiac, hence forbidden to the Christian. MacOfJesus (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To draw an example:
If you were to meet your Bank Manager coming home from the Bank and ask him/her about money matters, you might get short-change! No?
If you were to meet the priest coming out of the confessional after spending 4 hours hearing confessions, and ask him the questions you are proposing, including Neithzsche's work, you might get some prayers said! A dissertation on ghosts, deamons, etc. Including; "Women priests, and you do look tired, father!".
As I understand it; Astronomy is the scientific study of the stars or star, to understand their nature. Whereas, Astrology is the study of the stars, as they appear to us in formation, to tell us about the future and where we fit in with the gods.
It might help to look at the immediate context of the quote:
The very word "Christianity" is a misunderstanding—at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. The "Gospels" died on the cross. What, from that moment onward, was called the "Gospels" was the very reverse of what he had lived: "bad tidings", a Dysangelium. It is an error amounting to nonsensicality to see in "faith", and particularly in faith in salvation through Christ, the distinguishing mark of the Christian: only the Christian way of life, the life lived by him who died on the cross, is Christian.... To this day such a life is still possible, and for certain men even necessary: genuine, primitive Christianity will remain possible in all ages.... Not faith, but acts; above all, an avoidance of acts, a different state of being.... States of consciousness, faith of a sort, the acceptance, for example, of anything as true—as every psychologist knows, the value of these things is perfectly indifferent and fifth-rate compared to that of the instincts: strictly speaking, the whole concept of intellectual causality is false. To reduce being a Christian, the state of Christianity, to an acceptance of truth, to a mere phenomenon of consciousness, is to formulate the negation of Christianity. In fact, there are no Christians.
As I read it, he's saying that the true Christian is set apart from others by virtue of his actions, not his beliefs, and combines this with the sweeping criticism that Christ was the only real "man of action", and that all who claim to follow him are worshipping him as a postulate of "faith" rather than as a matter of moral conviction through their actions. The "true" Christian is one who does as Christ did - and there have been precious few of those. --Aryaman(talk) 12:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In these cases it is often best to go back and look at the history of the word; "Christian", where it comes from and how was it used originally. The Acts of the Apostles explains its first use, and how it was used. (I have referred to this in the Saint Paul article page). Of course we are not perfect as Jesus, the sinless One, and we will always fall short. Saint Peter had a poor beginning in denying Jesus three times, but Jesus did'nt dismiss him! The others, exept the women, all ran away, exept John and Simon the Zealot we believe, there is still hope for us; "lesser christians".
Have you studied the article page on C.G. Jung, and his envolvement with the addict?
That was one of the clearest statements made by any of the 19th century German philosophers. N. normally meant what he said unless punning or joking. Let's hope no one asks similar questions about Kant or Hegel quotes. Zoonoses (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should bet on the horses. Half an hour later there was a question about Kant. Zoonoses (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.PNG)
