Humanities desk
< November 8	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 10 >

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

November 9

Photo-dating: File:Jozef Haller.jpg

Any thoughts on when this photo was taken as the file description page was missing a date and an author? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a higher quality original, with a link to the original source in a Polish archive. No specific date is given except "before 1939". --Jayron 32 00:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Polish military ranks, the three stars on his rogatywka make him a generał broni or lieutenant general, so if you know when he held that rank it would give you a time frame. Alansplodge (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our Józef Haller article says that his final promotion to lieutenant general was on 10 June 1920, so that doesn't narrow it down much I'm afraid. Alansplodge (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to check into his decorations (see #Honours and awards), and the one that looked most similar to the one he's wearing in this image was the Order of Vasa. A conclusive identification would probably help a little, as he wouldn't be likely to be honoured by a country that he wasn't involved with (until he became really prominent other than in wars during which Sweden was neutral), but we still have three problems: no source for the Order of Vasa in the first place (or any other decorations, for that matter), I couldn't find any online references to him having it (aside from wiki-type websites), and even if this were conclusively proven, I couldn't find any dates for when he got it. Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cross of Valour (Poland) Maybe? Image is black and white so I can't match the colors..Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. senators who have resigned

Is there a chronological list of members of the United States Senate who have resigned? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear so. The closest I could find is List of United States Senators expelled or censured#Expulsion proceedings not resulting in expulsion, which lists a few who resigned before being expelled, but that obviously is nowhere near complete. Seems like a good list to create (hint, hint). Clarityfiend (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have List of special elections to the United States Senate. Neutrality^talk 05:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity, the old testament, and prohibitions on homosexuality post st peter

(As a barely-active wikipedian, I usually don't log in these days, so please overlook the fact that I haven't made any edits with this account for a while)

Apparently, a significant number of christian denominations, including the Catholic church, believe that male homosexual acts are prohibited by the bible, in particular, the verse in Leviticus.

My question (and please let us stay on track here) is; Why, according to these denominations, has this specific old testament prohibition been maintained, whilst almost all the other hundreds of rules, laws and prohibitions of the old testament (including "abominable" prohibitions) have been allowed to fall by the wayside (due to something to do with St Peter abolishing the requirement to keep them)?

I'm interested in answers of either a historical and theological nature, but as I said earlier, I hope this question doesn't lead to people going off in totally unrelated tangents. Thanks. Eliyohub (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See First Epistle to the Corinthians, specifically 1 Corinthians 6:9. There is, of course, some question among theologians if Paul can override Jesus, for example whether Jesus's general pronouncements against people passing judgement against fellow people, for example the Parable of the Tares where Jesus makes clear it isn't people's job to deal with sin, of any kind, or more to the point the Great Commandments mentioned in Matthew 22:35-40 "...On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." where Jesus makes clear that people's responsibility to the Law requires only loving God and loving one's neighbor. It isn't clear that Paul's later pronouncements against what is and is not allowable for believers can override Jesus's pronouncements on the same. Remember that the Bible is filled with convenient contradictions and ambiguities. It's why even Christians can't generally agree on this stuff. Most major Christian denominations do accept that the Law of Christ replaces or overrides or takes precedence over Old Testament law, see Abrogation of Old Covenant laws, Supersessionism, Dual-covenant theology, and more articles linked from there over the general theological opinions (of which there are as many as there are different Christian sects, and which may differ from actual practice of individual Christians). --Jayron 32 13:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are several biblical reasons why Christians condemn homosexual acts:

- In all discussions of appropriate sexual behavior in the Old and New Testaments, heterosexuality is assumed by the language. Sex outside of marriage is considered sinful, and there was no question in contemporary Judaism that marriage is by definition heterosexual, see also Jesus' definition of marriage in Matthew 19:4-6.

- Jesus condemns "πορνεία" (sexual immorality), e.g. in Mark 7:21. The word πορνεία was a generic term for all forms of forbidden sexual acts, including homosexual intercourse.

- The apostle Paul reiterated the prohibition from Leviticus, as mentioned in the above comment, in 1 Corinthians 6:9 among other places, where he uses the term αρσενοκοιται, which is derived from the Greek translation of Leviticus 18:22.

If you want more details, I recommend the works of Robert A. J. Gagnon, who is the foremost scholar advocating the traditional Christian view on homosexuality today. In addition to his books, you can view a number of his lectures and debates on the subject on Youtube. - Lindert (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A more cynical take is this is simply explained by cherrypicking, fearmongering, and homophobia. But note that Christians are not a homogeneous group. Many of them are fine with homosexuality, and many homosexuals are Christian. Here's a website by and for gay Christians [1]. Then again some Christians like to wear hair shirts and flagellate themselves, here's a site that caters to those desires [2]. So Christians, like people in general, do all kinds of things that are hard to justify to those outside that culture. Here's an article that discusses why some Christians may choose to view homosexuality as a sin and yet happily eat shellfish, wear clothes of blended fibers, and do all sorts of other things that a literal reading of the Bible would prohibit: [3] SemanticMantis (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed from SemanticMantis' description that this link was a sceptic's website, condemning those who eat shellfish etc. but consider homosexuality sinful; I was wrong, as it's defending such a position. Nyttend (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, based on various combinations of the links Jayron gave above, it's easily to arrive at a position like that. Jesus abrogated the Old Testament laws, oh, but not natural law of course, and homosexuality is against natural law, therefore...you can't win with these people. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, sorry for the confusion, perhaps it was due to my initial tone. While it's easy to find refs critical of this seeming hypocrisy, OP is looking for defenses mounted by people who take such a position, so I gave a ref of that nature. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} on anyone holding the interpretations that Jayron suggests beginning with "There is..." Besides the 1 Corinthians 6 passage, see verses 26-27 of the first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans; I can't speak to the original, but every recent translation I'm checking (as well as older ones, including the Geneva Bible and the Authorised Version) renders it as an obvious condemnation of homosexuality. Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that it's a condemnation of homosexuality in Paul's voice. The issue is whether Paul's authority supercedes Jesus's authority in matters such as this, such as when Jesus makes it clear in several passages that it isn't the role of believers to condemn anyone, or that fullfilment of the law is achieved through loving God and loving one's neighbor. This theologian for example spends considerable text discussing the ways in which Paul's teachings and Jesus's teaching contradict each other on several issues. this list also notes several discussions about contradictions between Paul's teachings and Jesus's teaching. My note is not to say that one is correct or another. That's for the OP to decide. Mine is merely to present the various perspectives on the matter, and to note that Christianity is not unified in its condemnation of Homosexuality, even with Paul's writings on the topic. There are gay Christians, gay Christian theologians, gay Christian clergy, just as there are Christians who condemn homosexuality. This is not a contradiction because Christianity is not a monolithic set of beliefs, but a wide range of beliefs, and there are multidudes of earnest, sincere, deeply religious Christians who deeply believe in both sides of this. --Jayron 32 02:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to understand why both extramarital sex and same-sex are considered "sinful" - it's because sex is supposed to be a sacrament, within marriage, for the purpose of reproduction. Theoretically, any sex that's purely recreational is sinful. That's the strict-Christian view. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original question — the Westminster Confession (WCF) is the basis for the Presbyterian/Reformed perspective on the question. See [4] for a discussion of the concept. In short, the WCF teaches that Old Testament laws can be divided into three groups (although of course you get the occasional one that's ambiguous and therefore disputed, e.g. Sabbath in Christianity#Reformation), being ceremonial, civil, and moral. Ceremonial embraces things like the dietary restrictions; these were implemented to set Israel apart from its neighbors, and Israel's special status being ended after Christ, he abrogated it (as announced to St Peter, but not done by his authority). Civil embraces things like the Cities of Refuge, matters such as the details of criminal law; aside from the Reconstructionists, WCF adherents generally consider the civil law to be abrogated, again because Israel lost its special status after Christ. Moral embraces fundamental elements of morality, concepts that transcend culture and history to be applicable in all situations, basically because they're reflections of God's nature and (unlike the other two) not simply tools meant for a specific group of people in a specific situation. Because moral laws are held to continue after Christ, the appearance of Old Testament commandments after the death of Christ (e.g. the aforementioned condemnation of homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9) is taken as a premier indication that they're elements of the moral law. The URL I cited claims that the concept of a threefold division of the law is at least as old as St Thomas Aquinas (thirteenth century) and that the concept appears in the early writings of other Protestant traditions (e.g. the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith), but aside from those comments, I can't speak to the extent to which this concept is influential in Christian traditions aside from Presbyterian/Reformed. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I just discovered Christian views on the Old Covenant. I haven't read through it, so while I'm guessing that it might be useful, the {{rewrite}} at the top makes me hesitate to suggest it as a good summary. Nyttend (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sinful sex

Baseball Bugs said above, "...sex is supposed to be a sacrament, within marriage, for the purpose of reproduction. Theoretically, any sex that's purely recreational is sinful. That's the strict-Christian view." Logically, that strict Christian view would therefore be that a married couple physically incapable of conceiving should abstain from sex and that if they did not it would be sinful. Is that correct? --Dweller (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would logically follow, because there are other reasons for sexual intercourse besides procreation and pleasure: 1) strengthening the marriage bond (cf. becoming one flesh) and 2) avoiding fornication (see e.g. 1 Corinthians 7:2). - Lindert (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer. --Dweller (talk) 11:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There must be also somewhere in the Bible, the idea that in case a married couple is physically incapable of conceiving, they should still try and try in the hope it would finally work some day? Thanks. Akseli9 (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham (then called Abram) was an octogenarian when informed by God that not only would his similarly-aged wife Sarai conceive a child, but also that he would become the father of an entire nation. Poor woman. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham wasn't a Christian, so didn't have to worry about Bugs' comment, which reflects Christianity's views, not Judaism's. --Dweller (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christians certainly have clear views on Abraham as an important figure; while Abraham#Christianity doesn't include as much detail as it should, it isn't as though Christianity doesn't view Abraham in the same light as other pre-Christian biblical figures, or ignores him entirely. Many Old Testament stories are recast by Christianity in a Christian paradigm. For example, the fourth figure in the Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego story is often interpreted to be Christ by many Christians, much of the Messianic parts of the Book of Isaiah are interpreted to be referring to Jesus, Christians view the Song of Songs allegorically using characters from the New Testament, etc. The entire first chapter of the Gospel of John provides the theological basis for reinterpreting Jewish Scripture from a Christian perspective, by establishing that Christ is God, and that Christ has existed since Creation (see also Logos (Christianity)). The argument, from a Christian point of view, that Abraham predated Christ and so can be ignored as "not christian" doesn't hold water from the point of view inside Christianity. Now, arguing from a historical point of view, I'm inclined to agree that basic logic dictates that people born before the first century CE cannot be Christians. From a theological point of view, however, John 1 provides the basis for holding that Abraham's story can be understood from a Christian perspective, since Christ has existed from creation itself. So, while Bugs's statements have clear issues (because, like much of what he has said, it contains assertions but no references) one of them isn't that Christianity has no interpretation of the Abraham story. They clearly do. More Christian writing about Abraham can be found directly in the Bible itself; Paul's Epistle to the Romans discusses Abraham's story (Romans 4). Here is a brief overview comparing all three Abrahamic religions views on Abraham. --Jayron 32 13:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, a Christian theologian would expect Abraham to have had practical and philophical perspectives on marriage that match the Christian ones? --Dweller (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, but the view among Christian theologians is rarely "Christianity began with the ministry of Jesus and didn't exist before then". The view is more "Christianity has existed since Creation, but God's Plan for humankind entered a different phase when Jesus began his ministry..." Christianity views the Old Testament through the filter of the New Testament, thus will interpret passages of the Old through the understanding of the New. Also, Christians have no expectation that any person, save Christ, has lived a sinless life, and that includes Abraham and every other Old and New testament character. So, there is not, nor has there ever been, an expectation in Christianity that any character in the Bible has led a life which should be 100% a model. If Abraham had a view of marriage that Christians deemed to be sinful (i.e. Hagar), so what? No theologian has ever said that every event in the Bible means "This is how you lead your life". So, it doesn't mean that Abraham is expected to have the expected Christian view on marriage (whatever that means), it DOES mean that the story of Abraham isn't ignored as irrelevant because it happened chronologically before Jesus was born. --Jayron 32 16:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but that doesn't prevent some people from e.g. objecting to gay marriage because gay sex is not procreative. Then again, gay sex can also strengthening of marriage bonds and becoming one flesh... SemanticMantis (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you hold to a biblical definition of marriage obviously. - Lindert (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What biblical definition of marriage? --Jayron 32 21:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't seriously suggest that whenever the biblical authors talked about marriage they understood this to include homosexual unions?! It's just a simple recognition that in ancient Judaism and early Christianity the notion of 'homosexual marriage' would have been regarded just as nonsensical as a square circle. As for the closest thing to a definition in the Bible itself, see Mark 10:6-9. - Lindert (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire. See eromenos, a form of homosexual relationship that St Paul would have been familiar with. In 1 Cor 6, he does not use this word (or anything similar) - he uses ἀρσενοκοῖται ("defilers of themselves with mankind"), which appears to be unique to this epistle, and μαλακία ("the effeminate"), which is used elsewhere in the literature of the period to mean "soft" in the literal sense, not being applied to people. See The Bible and homosexuality#Other epistles (which I don't think we've had a link to yet). Tevildo (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never said or implied that Paul was unaware of homosexual relationships, just that he (and any Jew of his day) did not consider them marriages (btw ἀρσενοκοίτης also occurs in 1 Timothy 1:10). - Lindert (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The claim by Baseball Bugs isn't in line with the modern church (I'm not sure it's in line with any historical period of the church). Google for "christian sex books" and you'll find lots and lots of them, and they're not about child-conceiving. "Intended for Pleasure: Sex Technique and Sexual Fulfillment in Christian Marriage" seems to be a popular one. Staecker (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When did the Catholic Church recant its position opposing artificial contraception? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Church endorses various Calendar-based contraceptive methods, the entire point of which is to have sex without conceiving. Staecker (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, right. I recall one of my college instructors talking about the costs of contraception. He said the "rhythm method" is by far the most expensive, since you'll probably have a child 9 months later. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that it works, or that this Church teaching is reasonable (I'm not a Catholic). But a mainstream "strict Christian" does not view sex without conception as sinful. If you really think it does, then give some references. Staecker (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Half the world's Christians are Roman Catholics, and a significant portion of the other half also teaches against artificial contraception (and they all file lawsuits to prevent it from being covered by insurance). And if the rhythm method fails, they'll say it's "God's will". And if it happens outside marriage, it's a sin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And also Christians (even "strict" ones) overwhelmingly believe that sex without conception is not sinful. Isn't that what we're talking about? It's OK for you to just admit that you were wrong about that one, or just stop commenting on this thread. Staecker (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wrong. Are you saying I should accept your argument, rather than trusting my own eyes and ears? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As they say, you're entitled to your own opinion, but you can't have your own set of facts. Seeing as this is the reference desk and not the random misconceptions desk, can you point us to a mainstream authority who thinks that sex without conception is sinful in Christianity? (I'm losing patience anyway and won't be arguing this any more- hopefully anybody who really cares about Christian doctrine can investigate for themselves rather than taking my or your word for it.) Staecker (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read Catholic teachings on sexual morality and get back to us if you have questions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. Staecker challenged the accuracy of your original statement and you have still not provided anything to back up that assertion. - Lindert (talk) 08:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That article says what I was saying, only more eloquently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for/against rule of the shorter term

According to List of countries' copyright lengths, the Marshall Islands currently has no copyright legislation. Let's say I become the benevolent dictator of the Marshalls, and I decide to implement copyright legislation; being a longtime Wikipedian, I've heard of the rule of the shorter term, so I'm careful to include a provision either implementing or rejecting it. What factors would I consider? In other words, what are some pro/con ideas on it? The article on the rule doesn't discuss anything about the effects of implementing or non-implementing it. I can imagine that it might improve foreign trade by a little bit, since affected foreign authors might be more interested in selling their works in the Marshalls because they can get additional years of royalties, while it might cause local problems, because it increases the time during which locals can't exploit the work. What other factors would be considered? Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if the term is absurdly short, then the governments of other nations might retaliate with economic sanctions such as tariffs, quotas, and boycotts. StuRat (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line with this question is a matter of politics and lobbying. It's well known that the last extension of copyright in the US was driven by Disney's desire to maintain control of the early Disney cartoons. (As if anyone has cared about Mickey Mouse since before I was born.) Copyright is rather artificial compared to normal property rights. There are plenty of essays on the topic at http://www.Mises.org. The US Constitution offers limited terms for the purpose of encouraging innovation. At some point extending copyright will obviously fail at that purpose.

As for some small island allowing all of John Grisham's works to be published as if they were in the public domain, it's clear there would be no profitable domestic market for the books on the island, and a simple civil suit would be enough to prevent them from being exported to the US and its treaty-cosignatories. That is, sanctions, tariffs, boycotts and quotas would not be necessary, since simple court injunctions should work. But the existence of easily reproduced electronic documents should force a rethink of copyright. It's sort of like the fact that while the technology existed for decades, the Bell System maintained a monopoly on the phones and mechanical devices attached to its network until the mid-1980's. Eventually, systems like that become too burdensome on the public for the state to continue their monopoly. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous countries still have telecommunications monopolies or near-monopolies, such as Japan (Nippon Telegraph and Telephone) and the UK (BT Group). The AT&T breakup was motivated more by a shift in ideology in the U.S. towards favoring deregulation. The 1970s also saw deregulation of trucking and airlines in the U.S. (the suit against AT&T that led to the breakup was filed in 1974, though it wasn't settled until 1982). Some people have argued the breakup was a bad idea, in retrospect. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]