Humanities desk
< April 21	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 23 >

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.

April 22

biographical details of Jakob Lorber

hi, all - I'm working on a project about Lorber, and although there's quite a bit about him on the web, a lot of it is of a religious nature, talking about his writing, whereas at the moment I'm looking for stuff to do with his quotidian existence - there's a thing by Eggenstein that purports to be a biography, but gives only Lorber's early years; what I'm hoping for is something about his life when he was writing; it seems as if he did nothing but write for 25 years - where was he living? - how was he living? - did he have enough of a following in life for them to support him financially?

Thanks for any answers.

Adambrowne666 (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a three-page "digression" about him in this book about Schubert. [1] It describes him living simply in a room in an inn, and conducting seances for friends. OttawaAC (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's a wonderful find - thanks so much, Ottawa! Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The biographical accounts by his acquaintance Karl Gottfried Ritter von Leitner are available online here, but, alas, in German, though transcribed to modern Standard German orthography, which makes it a bit easier for machine translation, yet still hard to parse — I just tested the second (shorter) link). Let me (or people at the language desk) know if you need help. I couldn't find KGRvL's writings in English. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps, Sluzzelin - actually, the project is a book on Lorber - illustrated essays with quotes from Lorber's revelations; because the translations of Lorber's writing are still under copyright, I believe I'll need to employ a translator to English those parts of his writing that I end up using. Would it be okay if I talked with you about this, when the time comes, or should I just put a call out onthe Language Desk, do you think? Adambrowne666 (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it would be okay, and should I not respond swiftly, there are a number of editors at the language desk who are fluent in German. In fact, there is one Austrian friend who might be just the right bird for this! ---Sluzzelin talk 09:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Sluzzelin; nice to see you again btw - I should say that it likely won't be ready for a translator until something like November - but I will certainly take you up on it, or Cockatoo, if he/she is agreeable. Is there some way I can save this thread to my profile or something so I don't forget all this? Adambrowne666 (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent link, or, once this question has been archived, you can also use a normal wikilink to the archives: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2014_April_22#biographical_details_of_Jakob_Lorber (watch this link turn blue in two days). ---Sluzzelin talk 10:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got it - thanks yet again! Adambrowne666 (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370

It is almost 2 months, till a single wreckage is not found. Is there any historical example where the first wreckage was found long after the original accident date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorMakingEdits (talk • contribs) 04:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite what you're asking for, but with Air France Flight 447 in 2009, wreckage was found five days after the crash, but the black boxes weren't recovered until 2 years later. Of course, some planes, such as Amelia Earhart's and Frederick Valentich's, have never been found. HiLo48 (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best example is probably the 1947 BSAA Avro Lancastrian Star Dust accident, where an airliner crashed into a mountain in the Andes and intensive searching did not find it. (Of course the technology they had was far behind what is available today.) Some of the wreckage was found in 1998 in a glacier and it was realized that over the intervening 51 years the glacier had moved it to a lower altitude on the mountain.

Also, there have been several examples of military flights that were lost during World War II and the planes were found decades later, but I don't have specifics to cite. Another somewhat well-known civilian example involves a small plane: hockey player Bill Barilko was killed in a crash in 1951 and the wreckage was not found until 1962. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 05:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry's plane crashed in the Mediterranean Sea in 1944 and the first piece of wreckage was only found in 1998; and people had a pretty clear idea of where his plane had gone down. --Xuxl (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now another question. Why is it taking so long to find the Malaysian plane despite all the modern technology? And it was a huge plane, not a tiny plane, so the wreckage must be clearly visible. --EditorMakingEdits (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you appreciate the huge area they need to search? And how deep the water is there (c. 5 kilometres)? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To echo HiLo & Jack of Oz, the region or area of the crash is the main reason it has yet to be and may never be found.

The plane US Majority Leader Hale Boggs & Congressman Nick Begich went down in a glacier field back in '72. Talk about MASSIVE government co-ordinated long-term search efforts and yet no one has ever even found a scrap from that plane in over 50 years. ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 09:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I must inform my friends born in 1972 that they've missed their 50th birthday parties. How time flies these days. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

lol, does it look like I frequent the math desk? lol Ok how about it is now in its 5th decade of being missing? ;-) ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To give some idea, last I heard, the area under consideration is about 217,000 sq km. This is larger than many countries, such as Switzerland, Belgium, Syria, Tunisia and Greece, and not much smaller than the United Kingdom. Multiply that by c.5 km deep, and you have well over 1 million cubic kilometres of water to search, and the wreckage is most probably at the bottom. At the outset, the coordinator of the Australian search, Angus Houston, warned that it could take many months, rather than weeks or days, and they may never find anything. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A passenger plane diverted from Malaysia towards the military runway at Diego Garcia could instead be downed at the bottom of the Chagos trench where nobody is thinking of looking. JustAnotherUploader (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Diego Garcia conspiracy theory has been around for a number of weeks. I'm quite sure the authorities read Facebook and have taken all of its scientifically rigorous postings into account. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One important reason why it's taking so long is that the information about the plane's deviation from its flight path wasn't revealed for days, allowing time for any floating wreckage on the ocean surface to disperse. Also, some of the information that there is was derived indirectly, sometimes in ways that haven't been done before, and that took more time. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The technology employed to find the wreckage seems poorly engineered to find a wreck whose location isn't known initially within a few miles.. The pinger has a very limited limited range so a search ship would have to be close to it to pick it up. Having picked up a ping there seems to be no way to be sure it is the transmitter being sought, since they are generic (same intended frequency duration and repetition rate). Some article suggested that unspecified underwater devices might have been confusing the searchers as if there were several recently crashed planes in a given ocean or equipment on some of the ships produced similar sounds or underwater cables had markers with similar pings. It is supposed to have a range of only a very few miles yet ships were reporting detecting pings in search areas hundreds of miles apart, with apparently no assurance that it was a transponder on the downed airliner in question that they were detecting. Also there does not appear to be a way for the searchers to directionalize and triangulate to zero in on the location. There were reports of ships picking up the pings receiving them for a hour or whatever apparently while continuing to sail a straight course then losing them. There did not appear to be a way to stop and rotate a directional receiver to get a bearing, in a way like sonar is used to locate submarines by localizing the bearing of a returned ping. In WW2 and after submarines have carried sound locating equipment which could detect and get a bearing for underwater sounds, such as distant ship engines, and various navies today reportedly track submarines hundreds of miles away through shipboard listening equipment and stationary hydrophones. The airline crash locating system seems way less sophisticated. Given the hundreds of millions of dollars spent in this search, and the fact that a number of crashed airliners have never been located despite having similar beacons, it would be interesting to see a proof of performance study wherein engineers study the strengths and shortcomings of current beacons and detectors, so that a system could be put in place which would allow a more efficient and effective search. Possible areas for study: Different frequencies which might work better to be detected at greater distance, a ping pattern which identifies a particular unit, higher output for more distant detection, a battery with longer life, and a system which transmits a more powerful response ping when a probe signal from a search vessel is received. Finding the cockpit voice recorder and the other "black box" could help to prevent whatever happened to this plane happening to others in the future whether it was a fire, some other event which incapacitated the crew or prevented a safe emergency landing or bad actions of the crew or passengers. Edison (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History on Author & Occultist Donald Tyson.

I am interested on the history on Author & Occultist Donald Tyson. Also any reference or reviews of his writings & work. Here on Wikipedia I read somewhere that his page was deleted for some reason. I have come across his fictional work for sale many times on Amazon.com so I would like to know why he was not any longer included on this site. Even if he was considered to be irrelevant or not perhaps an established or successful author, it seems to me that a reference on him no matter how small should at least be put on this site. Is there a reason someone can tell me of why this person had a page and then had it deleted? Was it nonfactual? I use Wikipedia all the time and after hearing of this, I think I would like to understand the sites policies more in depth. Especially concerning this author. How can it hurt anything to include at least a list of his known writings and whatever history is known or unknown on him. No author that has had his work published should be considered too small in my opinion to be on Wikipedia. If not for anything but just as a reference and maybe even a review area to highlight his work be it good or bad. Any reference is better than no reference as long as it is considered to be established & factual, right? That's all. A response will be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time. Signed Timothy M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.97.225 (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Tyson tells why it was deleted. 75.41.109.190 (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Currency Exchange

I need to change some money up from one currency to another, the trouble is a lot of places around town that offer this service claim not to charge any commission, but then quote a rather different exchange rate than the one given online, I am wondering if this is something I will encounter everywhere, or if there is any way of finding somewhere that can change money up at a better rate, at least something close to what it is supposed to be? Or even some way of comparing different options without having to walk all over the city asking at each place to see what rate they offer?

213.104.128.16 (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is something you will encounter everywhere. If the service doesn't charge commission, then the way they make money providing this service is to manipulate the exchange rate. I see that your IP address is in England. I don't know of a way to easily compare exchange rates. Perhaps you could call some places and ask their rates over the phone to compare. See Bureau de change for more information and examples of typical locations for currency exchange.--Dreamahighway (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can see lots of rates at xe.com. Generally places that charge no commission will give you a worse exchange rate, so if you're changing a large amount you're better off paying a small commission to get a better rate. If you're changing a smaller amount, you're better off taking the worse rate to avoid paying the commission. The crossover might in the 100-200 Euro range, depending. Rates fluctuate throughout the day just like the stock market does, so you can't expect a phone quote to still be good 30 minutes later. If you go to a part of your city where international tourists go shopping, you'll probably see a lot of change shops with exchange rates displayed in their windows, so you can pull out your calculator and make comparisons. Added: compare the buy and sell rates for a given currency: if they're within 5% of each other (in small retail amounts) you are doing pretty good. With large amounts you can of course do better. No you will not be able to make money on arbitrage by running up and down the street making exchanges in those shops. 98.207.66.10 (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a town that you live in or visit often, it might be be worthwhile to open an account with a bank and keep just a small amount of money in the account. Banks, at least here in the States, will change money for you and will do so at a better rate if you are a customer of theirs. Dismas|^(talk) 23:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My personal experience is that banks offer a very poor exchange rate, even to their customers, and a UK customer is better off trying the Post Office and local travel agents, if possible. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right. It's easiest to go to the Post Office, ask for 100 euros and give them your debit card. They withdraw the sterling from your bank, convert it and hand you 5x 20 euro notes. Your bank account reads 'withdrawal £82.37' as if you were at an ATM - they consider it a domestic withdrawal in the UK like any other. Go spend your euros. Bring the change back to the Post Office to convert and deposit to the bank. --81.145.165.2 (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do Hare Krishna adherents view Buddhism negatively?

I recently met a Hare Krishna adherent on the street. He attracted my view, because he was the only person on the street in some sort of scanty robe, chanting some sort of verse in some language. Probably Sanskrit, Pali, or whatever. He called it "preaching". I asked him whether this was Buddhism, but apparently he just told me that Buddhism was "inferior" to his religion, because it "promoted morality". He gave me a business card, and I used it to look up the organization, which was affiliated with the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. I don't get it. Assuming that this guy's views are pretty representative of the Hare Krishna group (after all, he is "ordained", whatever that is supposed to mean), I still wish to know how the Hare Krishna people view Buddhists. 140.254.226.231 (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions or even theology aside, they're both offshoots of Hinduism, though Krishna Consciousness presents itself as a restoration of Hindu teachings while Buddhism is an explicit rejection of them. Despite this, they share a number of ideas and meditational techniques, which can make a younger religion that claims to be older rather edgy. I'm under the impression that, for a good chunk of the '60s and '70s, they were sort of competing for the same converts.

Plus, on some level, anyone who's devoted to a particular religion has to believe that their religion is superior to others, otherwise there's no reason to not convert or at least syncretize.

Also, dude probably gets tired of hearing "hey are you Buddhist or something?" Ian.thomson (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't explain why Hare Krishna people believe that Buddhism is inferior, because it promotes morality. I don't even know what "promoting morality" means or the rationalization of perceiving Buddhism as inferior. 140.254.226.231 (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any ISKCON/Hare Krishna sources that have a problem with Buddhism promoting morality. Perhaps he meant that it only promotes morality, and not the sort of deeper spirituality that ISKCON claims to have? That would provide some theological reason for Hare Krishna devotees to believe Buddhism is inferior. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a profound misrepresentation of the history of those religions to suggest that Buddhism is an "offshoot" of Hinduism; the two have had substantial influence on one-another, but that is not the nature of their relationship. Snow (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A history teacher of mine used to be fond of the formulation: Buddhism is to Hinduism as Sufism is to Islam. I don't necessarily think that's the best possible way of putting it, but it's better than the Judaism/Christianity comparisons that sometimes get thrown about, with one being an identifiable "offshoot" of the other. Just thought I'd put that out there. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're sure he didn't say "promotes immorality"? —Tamfang (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do Christians preach in the vernacular?

This question is related to the previous one, because it is about preaching in public. The Hare Krishna adherent says that he is "preaching". Christians, on the other hand, seem to preach in the vernacular language, so American Christians will preach in English, because English is the common language of America. Whether the preaching is done on street corners or in churches, people typically "preach" in English. Maybe some Roman Catholic services will introduce Greek chanting, simply because it's traditional, but most of the liturgy seems to be done in 18th-19th century English. Is there a reason why Christians do not preach in the Aramaic of Jesus, koine Greek, or biblical Hebrew? 140.254.226.231 (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catholics are more likely to use Latin, with only certain uses of Greek.

But otherwise, Christians were historically more interested in people learning about their beliefs right away, rather than being interested in some mystical chant they didn't understand and only partially learning the religion's doctrines over time (well, with the exception of some Gnostic groups that, even if accepted by then contemporary mainstream Christianity, wouldn't have gotten anywhere). Most Jews and Muslims, IIRC, also preach in the vernacular, barring certain groups restrictions on recitation of the holy texts and certain formal prayers. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about the reference to Greek myself. In my own high-church Anglican experience, though, the Kyries may be in Greek even when the rest of the service is solely in English - is that possible in Novus Ordo, too? And does anywhere still use the 'Agios o Theos' Greek versicles from the Tridentine Mass? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's possible in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite: the little 'Order of Mass' cards common in English Catholic churches since the new translation came in have the kyrie in both languages (the only part of the Mass they do this for). But then, it's also pretty common to have some of the parts of the Mass in Latin while most is in English. The "Holy is God" versicles appear with the Reproaches on Good Friday. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a brief aside, the only non-English language I have ever encountered in a Catholic Mass is Greek, during the kyrie. ~~As I understand it, post-Vatican II, Latin is almost never used outside very special (and very rare) uses of the Tridentine Mass.~~ Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you haven't been to the perfectly ordinary parishes near me? Singing the parts of the Mass in Latin (the Agnus Dei and so on) from time to time is pretty common, and I even know a town where they do it just about every Sunday. It's always the Missa de Angelis in my experience, which is the one everyone knows. All in ordinary parishes who would never dream of using the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (the Tridentine Mass), with Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and girl altar servers. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having only been to a few Catholic Masses, I will take your word for it! Striking the poorly informed part of my comment above. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Because no-one speaks Aramaic or Koine Greek any more, and modern Hebrew is quite localised to Israel outside Jewish liturgical contexts. More seriously - the Protestant Reformation, and latterly the Liturgical Movement, have meant that worship is conducted in the vernacular across the entire western Church. (I'm less familiar with the position in the Orthodox tradition.) This has been a big deal for Christians over the years - even though the Vulgate Bible latterly became viewed as the inaccessible, non-vernacular text, it started its life as a more accessible alternative to Greek.

There's also a confusion of terminology here. Preaching in Christianity is almost invariably words addressed to the populace - whether a congregation or the general public. Worship is words and actions addressed to God, either directly or by calling on saints to join in addressing God. Meditation is words, actions and thoughts directed inward to the self, to enhance mindfulness of God and godly deeds. Almost all Christian preaching has always been in the vernacular, even when worship has not been, because if I step out of my front door and proclaim "Quare fremuerunt gentes?", no-one will understand me.

I may meditate to myself, or perform an act of worship, in a language other than my own - I sometimes sing hymns in German, and use prayers in Latin or Greek. But no preaching that is not understandable by its audience is going to get anywhere. (There's a reflection of this in the story of the Apostles speaking in tongues at Pentecost.) So I suspect that the ISKCON fellow may not have been using the word 'preaching' in a conventional way. It's my understanding that members of the movement habitually chant the names and titles of Krishna is order to centre their thoughts on him rather than on themselves, and it sounds like this is what you witnessed.

Does that clarify things at all? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. But still, the defense of praying to saints is that it is no different from asking your grandma or friend to pray to God for you. But I think there is some sort of devotional aspect in the saints or Mary, mother of Jesus, in a way not so much different from Buddhists naturally bowing down devotionally to Buddha or bodhisattvas. They are not gods, but bowing down is just an act of devotion and respect. 140.254.226.231 (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Veneration which covers the distinction - the terms latria (worship), hyperdulia (great veneration) and dulia (veneration) have been used to delineate the honours due to God, the BVM, and other saints, respectively. To say that it's no different to asking for a friend or relative's intercession is misleading - it's also a form of honour, but not (by intention) the same honour that one gives to God. (This is all so much apologetics from me, as although as a high Anglican I accept these arguments in principle, it's very rare that I even go through the form of asking a saint to pray for me; our prayers relating to the saints mostly thank God for their lives and works, rather than calling on them personally. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, why don't high-church Anglicans like yourself call on them personally? Is there a theological reason? 140.254.226.231 (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article only lists the claims of the Protestant view, not the reasons that lead up to the claims. That is, it does not explain why a distinction cannot be made. 140.254.226.231 (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much of High Anglicanism (since the days of the Oxford Movement) has focussed on reconciling the traditions of Roman Catholicism (and of the Church in England before the Reformation specifcially) with the witness of the Church of England as a Reformed Church. This means trying to square parts of the 39 Articles with the elements of Catholic teaching - in some cases, the exact areas of Catholic teaching that the Articles were written to oppose. In this case, it's Article 22: "The Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, worshipping and adoration as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saint, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture; but rather repugnant to the word of God." The usual argument is that this was attacking the profit-making and superstitious late-medieval form of the cults of the saints, and that simply calling on the saints in prayer is not the same thing. But as is so often the case in the Church of England, the specific answer is a matter of personal conscience - and so the level of saint-mentioning that I feel comfortable with won't be the same as the next person's, even within the same tradition. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse preaching. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

One may wonder what modern-day atheists mean by "superstition" and "magic" in regards to prayer. I think many Western atheists hold a Western view of prayer without realizing they are holding a Western view of prayer. The failure to understand Christian theology and the limited knowledge of Eastern religions and philosophies seem to make the atheist argument against prayer (i.e. "Prayer doesn't work") very weak. 140.254.226.231 (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of praying to saints instead of to God is a Catholic invention with no biblical basis. As for prayer "working" or not, it always works, if you're praying for the right thing. Praying for some specific object or action is a misuse of prayer. Praying for spiritual strength works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the trite answer is "God answers every prayer; sometimes the answer is "no"... --Jayron32 18:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sidetrack to the sidetrack here is the curious role of saints, which does seem worthy of remark. I think pretty clearly the Protestant theology, as alluded by AlexTiefling above, is that the dead are indeed dead, and that any remarkable alteration of their status occurs (at least) at some point in the far future after all the history of the universe is written. Thus asking them for their prayers is pointless. Nonetheless, the counter-example of the piling up of relics in the Peace and Truce of God movement illustrates that the dead are not entirely without power, for there is still the power of their example. One might go so far as to say that the modern saints are a living scripture, in that by understanding the character of the sort of Christians who stand up against the tyranny of North Korea or the religious intolerance against gays in Uganda, one can understand for the first time the feeling behind the martyrs of old or the early believers who broke with Jewish traditions. Perhaps even "Belen" might offer an understanding of the virginity of Mary. I would suspect that substantial illumination on the subject can be had by rewinding all the way pre-Exodus to a Kemetic model in which the ab/heart/conscience/virtue of a person is able to live on and establish somehow an aakhu and eventually netcharu, but I should not pretend to really have a grasp of those concepts! Wnt (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that first bit is correct, at least not of Protestants generally. With few exceptions (I'm thinking of Seventh Day Adventists in particular, but I'm sure there are others) Protestants hold to the view that the "dead in Christ" (and I'm not going to point out the irony of quoting that phrase in connection with this particular view) are "transported" to heaven immediately upon death. As to whether they have any awareness of the physical world, I don't believe there are any established dogmas, but most Protestant objections to the veneration of saints center around the prohibition against necromancy, and also passages like 1 Timothy 2:5 ("For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus"). Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, are you sure? Searching the phrase, at least, it seems to refer explicitly to the Rapture. [2] Wnt (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well... yes... kind of... Though "Rapture" is the worst kind of anachronism. I wasn't quite using the phrase in Paul's sense, which I (admittedly vaguely) pointed out parenthetically; in hindsight, it was confusing. Point being: If you believe in Jesus (for strict sola fide-ists, of course) when you die, God immediately "beams you up" to heaven; if you don't believe, you get beamed down in the opposite direction. I grew up among Protestants of many stripes, and it took quite a few years for me to encounter any view of the afterlife contrary to this instantaneous conception of it, and when I did, it was only in the context of being told how stupid/misguided/Satanic those other views were. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there need not be a contradiction with what you wrote per se, if one supposes a person experiences no subjective time while dead. It is only when you imagine the dead somehow intervening in the affairs of the living that you'd have to distinguish between these ideas. Actually my favored conception would describe the distance as a second, independent temporal dimension, the same physical time in a "different version number" of the universe. Because time is a very abstract concept, difficult to define or explain even within the confines of mundane physics, I suppose the decision whether to believe in intervention by saints or other dead may be the more fundamental theological quality, and virtually any conception of time can be adjusted to match what you think of it. Wnt (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Outreach Ministry"

I saw this sign and asked the guy that stood by it was it was about. He told me that it was a notice that there would be the last meeting for some sort of campus non-denominational outreach ministry program that meets on Saturdays. I asked him why they didn't meet on Sundays, but he just told me that it's not a church, it's a "ministry". I asked him what's the difference between "church" and "ministry", but he just said that a church is where Christians come and meet, while a ministry is where Christians "introduce students to Jesus". I looked up the "outreach ministry" and got bus ministry and "Outreach ministry is the Church at work in God's name, stretching out to meet needs in the wider community. Our daily lives are filled with outreach ministry, whether or not we have a formal role in the Church", which was basically driving people in remote places to church, with the goal of making religious conversions. I don't see the connection between reaching out to people in the greater community and converting people to Christianity, but I suppose reaching out and helping others somehow make people talk about spiritual things. As time passes by, people slowly adopt the Christian worldview and become Christians - first by behavior, then by faith. How do they (bus ministries, for example) work exactly? 140.254.227.81 (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up "Outreach" on Wikipedia too. Still no help. Grrr... Why do people have to be so vague? 140.254.227.81 (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Ministry" originally meant "to serve", and in many Christian churches, "lay ministries" exist where non-clergy engage in charitable service to members of the church community, or to the general public as ecclesiastic or "outreach" ministries. There are many types of such ministries. Youth outreach ministries are common, offering a combination of recreational and Christian learning activities. Outreach ministries for the elderly or homeless are other examples. Some definitions you might find helpful are here. [3] OttawaAC (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably a better source of info, it basically defines "outreach" as either evangelizing, or social/community service. Essentially, proselytizing. [4] OttawaAC (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proselytism –Nelson Ricardo (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the definition given by your sign-holder, the ministry is a parachurch organization — a group of Christians working for whatever purpose (in this case, evangelism/proselytising) without the specific oversight of a specific church, i.e. they don't answer to the leaders of an individual congregation or to the leaders of a denomination. This terminology is pretty much never used in this way except by Protestants, so Marks of the Church may be relevant to the guy's idea of the difference between the Church and his ministry; the anti-confessional nature of most American Protestants means that they'd probably reject a formal definition of the Marks of the Church, but the underlying idea is still present. This anti-confessionalism is a big part of the vagueness that you find confusing; if you're doing everything by yourself, you may end up creating your own terms that outsiders don't understand. Nyttend (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other timeline of ancient history

You know, with time running horizontally, regions stacked on each other, and running from 3000 BCE to 1000 CE. T3h 1337 b0y 23:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example. [5] What is the question? OttawaAC (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]