Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 March 13

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.

March 13

Perfume Ingredients

What are perfumes mostly made of, like WhiteDiamond(made by Elizabeth Taylor)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.2.36.187 (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Ask again and I'm going to apply your post directly to my forehead. :) Have you read our article on perfume? It contains the common ingredients. --TotoBaggins 02:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Do special commissions get paid?

I'm curious whether members of ad hoc committees such as the current Bob Dole / Donna Shalala one looking into the Walter Reed Army Medical Center neglect scandal get paid, and if so, how much? Google didn't help. Thanks. --TotoBaggins 02:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

According to this copy of the Executive Order creating the commission [1], they don't get paid. Private citizens on the committee, if any, can apply for a per diem for transportation and expenses, if there's any money for it in the budget. --Charlene 11:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! --TotoBaggins 21:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the copyright term in China?

Or in other words, from which year and on are works made in China encumbered by copyright. I've searched Wikipedia, Google and even asked a law professor with a blog about chinese law without getting an answer. As I understand it, China didn't formally have copyright until the late 80's, does this mean that anything made before that date is free for all? Or does the copyright apply retroactively for some number of years? – Foolip 04:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright in China lasts until the Communist government says otherwise.

(That's supposed to be a joke) The Jade Knight 06:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That's right. Copyrights in Red China are a joke. The government couldn't enforce them if it wanted to (and it doesn't want to). It makes a token effort to crack down every now and then, but that's about it. Clarityfiend 08:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course they can enforce it, they just don't want to. And it can have benefits, like providing hosting space to counter the ridiculous DMCA. 203.109.167.159 09:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

While your opinions of China's enforcement may be resonably accurate, this isn't answering the question. Intellectual property in the People's Republic of China however should give some idea Nil Einne 21:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

A law that isn't enforced, nor was ever meant to be enforced, hardly qualifies as a law. Nonetheless, these works of fiction can be rather entertaining! If you're in for a good laugh, I suggest you read the Constitution of the People's Republic of China. It's a rather lovely work of fiction, a real page-turner. Note the dedication to human rights, democracy, freedom, etc... Loomis 05:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

One Billion Pounds

If you go to London today and ask a Londoner this question. "If one billion pounds of money is divided equally among 1000 people. How much money does each person get?"

What would the answer be?

211.28.123.23 12:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that many wouldn't know. There's considerable confusion about the British billion, as opposed to the American. Common usage seems to have gone American. Nigel Planer's Nicholas Craig character in one of the hilarious Nicholas Craig Masterclass series in the early 90s, made a hilarious comment that I pretty much remember verbatim: "Billion" is a very powerful word because no-one actually knows what a billion is; it's just a very big number that begins with a "bilabial explosive B". --Dweller 12:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to guess. I just did some original research and asked my colleague here in London. His answer was "One thousandth of a billion pounds, of course". Gandalf61 12:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect most would say 1 million Nil Einne 21:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Should I take it, then, that the British notion of one Billion being 1,000,000,000,000, or what the rest of us would call one trillion has fallen into disuse? If so, it's about time! If not, well, at least we don't have to deal with that ridiculously antiquated £sd system anymore, whereby a pound is made up of 20 shillings or 240 pence. In any case, I should say that I'm quite the Anglophile. I absolutely adore England, as well as the rest of the UK, and all of their adorably quaint traditions. Loomis 03:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I am from the UK, and I've never had the notion of a billion being 1,000,000,000,000 - i've always though of it as 1,000,000,000 --194.176.105.40 11:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There's some information in the article on long and short scales. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent find, Sluzzelin. The "Notes on usage" section is particularly good. --Dweller 12:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a middle-aged Australian and I can remember when "billion" meant 1 million million here. One thousand million was called just that, a thousand million. But times change, and now a thousand million is called a billion. JackofOz 00:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm 23 and English and grew up referring to 1 thousand million as an American billion, but think I'm probably amongst the last people to do that. Now even the BBC use it in the American sense, and I do to (which slightly pains me). It's really funny this came up I was just thinking the other day we should have a campaign to bring back the correct meaning of billion. A thousand million can be called a milliard I believe.137.138.46.155 08:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Need a Name

What is the professional name of a restroom attendant? 66.190.204.89 14:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Greg

Do you mean what is their official job title? My usual quicksearch shows plenty of actual job postings for washroom attendant as well as my favorite but unofficial journalistic nomenclature, the lavatory laborer...but gives much more results for Bathroom attendant, which even gives a wikipedia entry, albeit a somewhat informal one. I suspect, depending on the culture and the formality of the restroom in attendant, you'll find the usual variances of synonym from washroom to bathroom to restroom showing up in the job title. Jfarber 14:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

With absolutely no disrespect to those who actually earn a living by this occupation, indeed, with complete respect for them for having the strength of character to do what's necessary to feed their families, the idea of having a "professional name" for a restroom attendant, would be to me, if I was a restroom attendant, exteremely condescending. Yes their may exist patronizing euphemisms to describe the occupation as a "profession", but to me, again if I were a restroom attendant, the most accurate and more importantly the most respectful term I'd appreciate being referred to as would be just that: "a restroom attendant". If you're not convinced, check out the article describing the "profession" referred to by some as a "sanitation engineer". Loomis 04:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the title would change depending on what a bathroom is called in whatever country they're working in. I'm guessing that in the UK they wouldn't likely be called "bathroom" or "restroom" or "washroom" attendants, if only because that room is generally called the "toilet" in the UK. --Charlene 11:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In US English, a "bathroom" would be found in a private residence. "Restroom" is a widely used term, possibly even the most common, for a public lavatory. Euphemistically, you'll hear the "Ladies' [Room] / Men's Room" --Deborahjay 17:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess we could debate all day about which jobs qualify as professions and which don't. I think it's an antiquated and snobbish notion. These days, all workers are required to act professionally in their jobs, or out they go - which is as it should be, imo. Whether the jobs themselves are "professions" is hardly relevant. What a sanitation engineer does to "act professionally" is obviously different from what a neurosurgeon does to "act professionally", but that's because the nature of their work is different. JackofOz 00:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree with you here Jack. My point was just that euphemisms that may be meant to protect people's feelings often backfire. For example, I don't know if there are any WalMarts in Australia, but up here, they have this silly practice whereby they refer to their employees as "associates". Perhaps some WalMart workers may actually be flattered to be referred to as a WalMart "associate", but if it were me, and I was working for minimum wage at a WalMart, and they started referring to me as a WalMart "associate", perhaps I'd bite my tongue if I really needed to retain the job, but what I'd feel like saying is: "Would you please quit with the whole "associate" bullshit! I'm no "associate" of WalMart, I'm just a minimum wage worker, which I'm perfectly fine as being. Just please quit the whole "associate" bullshit, as I actually find it quite insulting to my intelligence". Loomis 04:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. We don't have WalMart here, but I've certainly heard of them. I have a similar example, but from the opposite perspective. Fletcher Jones and Staff is an Australian clothing manufacturer and retailer, at one time one of the world's largest. When Fletcher (later Sir Fletcher) Jones founded the company, he wanted all the employees to be more than just employees. So he set it up in a way that they all part-owned the business, and thus had a vital stake in its success. They were truly "associates". (I'm surprised this is a red link; I must do something about that.) (The article now exists. I had nothing better to do. :) JackofOz 05:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Though rare, at times a supposed "co-op" is indeed a genuine "co-op", owned in part by its workers--its true "associates". Though I've never heard of him before, my hat goes off to Sir Fletcher, for being one of the few to not only refer to his employees as "associates", but to actually mean it by actually sharing in the company's ownership with its workers. Loomis 01:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Among other uses of the term, I've heard restroom attendants referred to as "valets". Thedoorhinge 22:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Vegatarianism

How is it perfectly okay to kill another being when it is not okay to kill another human? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brutal. Catastrophe. (talk • contribs) 15:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

People who eat meat would say that since many species kill and eat other animals, why should humans be any different. See Ethics of vegetarianism. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Not all people who eat meat feel that it is always and in every case, or ever EVER, "perfectly okay" to kill another being. I and many other ethical omnivores accept our place in the food chain, but do not kill except as a way to provide food. Many of us, in many cultures and many ways, also give thanks to the animal for giving its life that we might eat. Some of us refuse to participate in the cruely to mass food production and pain, and insist on only eating that which we hunt and kill ourselves; still others only buy local, or eat animals which are raised for food and could not survive alone in the wild, or kill reluctantly, and apologetically, but feel it is necessary to protect the viability of wild populations and environments which have been mostly destroyed by other humans over time.

In other words, some of us feel it is necessary for us, for all sorts of reasons; many of us feel that it is desirable, and is something we are willing to account for emotionally in order to eat meat; but only some meat eaters, AFAIK, think it is "perfectly okay". (Incidentally, just to be pre-emptive, by "necessary" I mean subjectively so, not that I somehow think it is impossible to live a healthy, full, and vegetarian life. It's just not the life for me.) Jfarber 15:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it quite hard to live without eating other animals. Splintercellguy 15:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a range of explanations for this: one explanation states that animals have a different moral status than humans, because humans have either free will, the ability to feel pain or a soul. To me these are obvious cases of anthropocentrism. C mon 15:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think religion have a bit to do with it too. The Christian Bible, for example, says that the animals are here for the humans, and which ones are ok to eat. Since something like 1/3 of the world are Christians, that's bound to have an effect. And of course, it says not to kill other humans. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Depending on your version of the Bible, it says, "Do not kill." It does not say "Do not kill other humans." We just assume that it is referring to other humans. --Kainaw ^(talk) 18:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, the Old Testament explicitly states certain animals as permissible food. 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 18:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, "do not kill" is a translation of the original. Is the word used in the original language actually "kill", or would it be more like "do not commit murder"? Corvus cornix 18:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed quite recently, here. The 10 Commandments prohibit "murder", not killing per se. JackofOz 21:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct, Wirbelwind. The Christian Bible does indeed contain restrictions as to which animals are prohibited to eat in its Old Testament. Yet for some reason these restrictions have been waived and apparently no longer apply. For example, I've never heard of any Christian abstaining from eating pork despite the fact that it's explicitly forbidden in Deuteronomy 14:8. On the other hand, violate the Old Testament's ostensible prohibition of homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22, and to many Christians, you're in for BIG trouble. This particular aspect of Christianity is one I'll never understand. Loomis 03:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Christians defend it by pointing out that in Romans one of the apostles was told that all food is good to eat and that the prohibitions no longer exist. However, that doesn't explain why Christians who point to Leviticus to justify their prejudice against gays and lesbians don't also follow the other non-food requirements in Leviticus - not wearing mixed-fibre clothing, purification after sex, childbirth, and menstruation, celebrating Yom Kippur, preventing the disabled from becoming priests, quarantining those with skin infections, etc. etc. --Charlene 11:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As for myself, I follow Deuteronomy and abstain from eating those animals which it prohibits the eating of. I actually find some sense and some comfort in the fact that one facet of this dietary code seems to me at least to be aimed at forbidding the eating of the higher orders of animals, those exhibiting a significant amount intelligence, emotion and sentience. I feel that it's a great misconception, based on a terrible mistranslation of the Bible, that pork is forbidden because pigs are "dirty, disgusting animals". On the contrary. Scientists consider pigs to be very intelligent creatures in relation to chickens cows or sheep. Perhaps even more intelligent than dogs or cats. The fact that relatively intelligent animals such as pigs, dogs, cats, dolphins, all the way up to our closest cousin, the chimpanzee, are all forbidden for human consumption is to me, at least, very comforting. For example, the fact that the Bible tells me I'm forbidden from eating my dog for whom I love so much and for whom I'm relatively certain has the capacity to love me back, is of great comfort to me. But that's just my take. Loomis 03:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

That's quite an interesting philosophy of diet. Eat those that are less intelligent and sentient. What a convenient way to solve philosophical problems. I wonder, if I have cannibalistic tendencies like this man right here, and I saw a little girl in a coma, given that like that man, I have a fetish for little girls and even necrophilia - would I be allowed to eat the little girl based on your philosophy, Loomis? Forgive the brutality of the question, but I'm always interested where the limits of morality are concerned. And what about fetuses? Can I eat them, too? Moonwalkerwiz 06:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, as long as you aren't breaking the law, you can eat whatever the hell you want. I'm not really sure what your point is though. I was just explaining where I draw the line between what I do eat and what I don't. Unless you're a cannibal who'd kill and eat your own mother, you too, whether you're willing to recognize it or not, draw your line somewhere as well. Are you an omnivore? If so, would you eat any animal, including humans? No? Why not? Are you a vegetarian? If so, why do you feel it's ok to eat unfertilized chicken eggs but not chickens? Are you a vegan? If so, why do you feel it's ok to kill one form of life, plant life, but not other "higher" forms of life, such as animals. Oh I get it, you're against eating any form of life at all. My question to you then is, how do you manage to survive living only on salt, vinegar and water? Yes, the line I draw between what I eat and what I don't is indeed arbitrary, just as yours inevitably is. Loomis 13:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Vinegar is made by exploiting life - it's made from alcohol, which is made by allowing living yeast to digest simple sugars. The yeast necessarily die during this process. (Don't know whether this is on topic, but it is factual!) --Charlene 07:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected by Charlene! How shameful of us humans to exploit and kill such noble life as yeast for our own selfish lust for vinegar! I therefore restate my question Moonwalker in a more appropriate manner: How do you manage to survive living only on salt and water? Loomis 23:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was because Jesus showed people it was ok, and even ate pork himself? I seem to recall something like that, but it's been years since I went to church, so I might have made it up (like they did with the Bible! j/k j/k don't kill me). --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Much more complicated than that; Jesus is not recorded as having eaten pork. This site covers a lot of it, but disagrees. As does this one. Generally, I seem to recall being told that it was to do with a new covenant being formed... Skittle 23:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. That's what I always thought. A clean slate. A tabula rasa. A new covenant. The "old rules" no longer apply. Except the one about gays of course... Loomis 03:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Paul of Tarsus was clearly a Christian, and his writings, included in the New Testament, have also been important... 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 13:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Because to my knowledge cows taste better than humans. Hannibal might disagree, though. -Wooty Woot? contribs 00:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

To your knowledge? Just how did you acquire this "knowledge" that cows taste better than humans? I, for one, have no idea what humans taste like. Perhaps we're delicious. Yet you seem to be implying that you have some first hand knowledge on the subject.......hmmmmmmmm...... ;-) Loomis 04:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought human flesh is supposed to taste bitter. But then again, coffee is popular. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you've been eating yourself, like a scab or when you bite your nails? 1234 - numbers!

According to my son, boogers taste salty, does that make him a cannibal?24.183.96.173 15:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope...or, at least, (s)not unless the airborne particulate in your area is full of little, tiny pieces of skin and hair cells instead of the usual pollen and dust. Jfarber 19:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Loomis, without wanting to perpetuate our debate about the meaning of "fact", is it really the case that Deuteronomy forbids the eating of dogs, cats, dolphins and chimpanzees? Are they specifically mentioned there, or is there a generic reference to certain kinds of life forms which includes these animals? JackofOz 00:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Jack, I hope you didn't take that whole "fact" debate too seriously. I didn't mean any offence whatsoever. Rather, as you've once described it, it was nothing other than "robust intellectual debate" between friends. I hope you didn't take it in any other way.

As for your question, Deteuronomy 14:4-5 first lists a few animals that are permissible to be eaten. 14:9-10 deals with which water creatures are acceptable (that takes care of the dolphins, as dolphins have no scales, and are therefore forbidden). 14:11-20 deals with "winged things"; which are permissable and which are not. The "water animals" and "winged things" (including flightless birds), having being dealt with, all that remain are the wingless "land animals", which are dealt with in 14:6. According to that passage, only those land animals which both 1)chew their cud and 2)have cloven hoofs, are permissible. Dogs, cats and chimpanzees neither chew their cud, nor have cloven hooves, and are therefore forbidden.

I recognize that it's all laid out in a rather bizarre fashion. A natural and understandable reaction would be "Cud-chewing and cloven hooved? Why are those animals that are permissible being described in such a bizarre fashion? Why not just say "don't eat pigs or cats or dogs or chimps?"" To that I say, were those Middle Eastern Israelites who first received these laws even aware that chimpanzees, for example, even existed? Of course not. If the Bible told these people "Thou shalt not eat chimpanzees", they'd likely be left scratching their heads, "what the hell's a chimpanzee?" Actually, your particular home continent is an even better example of why the laws would be described in this way. When was the first time a non-Australian-Aborigine ever came into contact with a kangaroo? 200 years ago? Maybe 300? It would be all the moreso bewildering to the ancient Israelites if the Bible said "Thou shalt not eat kangaroos". Once again, the reaction would be nothing other than complete confusion. "What on Earth is a kangaroo?" And that's assuming their were actually ancient Hebrew words for chimpanzees or kangaroos, which of course there weren't. I hope that's it's now a lot clearer why refering to those permissible animals as "cud chewing and cloven hooved" rather than identifying each one by name, makes a lot more sense. Is a kangaroo "cud-chewing and cloven hooved?" No. And that's exactly how Australian Jews are able to classify their meat as being unkosher. [User:Loomis51|Loomis]] 03:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that answers my question nicely. FYI, our article on kangaroo says: The name was first recorded as "Kangooroo or Kanguru" on 4 August 1770, by Lieutenant (later Captain) James Cook on the banks of the Endeavour River at the site of modern Cooktown, when HM Bark Endeavour was beached for almost seven weeks to repair damage sustained on the Great Barrier Reef. Cheers JackofOz 03:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Back to the original point, who says its not ok to kill other people. If it was a choice between starving to death or killing, I hope I'd kill. I think the real reason is if you feel you can kill someone to eat, whats to stop someone killing you to eat? But if all the people get together and agree not to kill each other, but to kill and eat animals, we're all better off. Much as some people think morals come from God, or from some logic or whatever, normally they are just practical ways for groups of people to succesfully function.

Pedophile in California

I have been searching unsuccessfully for news articles on a convicted pedophile in the early 1990's I believe in the San Jose or Redwood City area. From what I know, this man is currently in prison in California (or maybe in a mental institution), used to work for IBM and was considered a mathematical genius. Does anyone know where else I can look? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juliet5935 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Do you mean a pedophile? Nil Einne 21:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he did. Read the question... (Edited title accordingly...) 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 21:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia category for convicted child sex offenders. Not sure that'll be helpful or not, but, if the person you're trying to identify is notable, then, maybe ... --Keesiewonder ^talk 00:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

An intellectual reading list for a Christian man

A good friend of mine is a devoted Christian (happily of the "Jesus said to wash your feet" school, not the burgeoning "Jesus said to napalm your village" school). He's been reading various religious books, but sadly of a rather lowbrow Chickensoup variety. I owe him a favour, and I'm that sad kind of person who repays all favours with books. I'd hope to buy him something religious, but rather more horizon-widening and higher-brow than the stuff he's been reading. He's a smart guy, so I've no doubt he can handle the Big Guys, but he's led a sheltered life, so I think a Koran or Pirsig or even Maimonides might be too much culture-shock for him right now. What can I get for him that will broaden and deepen his religio-philosophical world, without making him think I'm trying to sneak him an instrument of The Devil? I ask with all humility, as my own understanding of Christian theology is firmly Sunday-School, and I might do well to be buying two copies of the chosen book. I'd really appreciate your recommendations. Is Aquinas accessible? Darryl Revok 22:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Screwtape Letters is improbably both fun and Christian. --TotoBaggins 22:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I know he's read that, because "Screwtape" is his nickname for me. He thinks it's an insult; I take it as a compliment. Thanks for your suggestion, however - clearly we're on the right track. Darryl Revok 22:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The God Delusion. Just kidding. But on a more serious note, have you heard of Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 22:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, if your friend is interested in philosophy, perhaps Critique_of_Pure_Reason by Immanuel Kant would be good as well. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 23:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My best guess is Paul Tillich, The Courage to Be. In a very different vein, if your friend is a confirmed Dante fanatic and is interested in what Medieval mysticism did with Aristotelianizing Neoplatonism, Christian Moevs' recent The Metaphysics of Dante's Comedy (ok, that was a big "if," but I found the book remarkably challenging on an almost devotional level: it confronts the reader with ways the mystical tradition's way of looking at the universe is truly Christian & at the same time true to the universe, even, perhaps somewhat cheesily but intelligently, invoking quantum mechanics). And option C, if you were thinking, yeah, he'd like to know more about Medieval mystics, but no way he wants to read a scholarly monograph on Dante's metaphysics, well, there's a new anthology just out in paperback, The Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism (Modern Library Classics), edited by Bernard McGinn. Wareh 23:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I highly recommend C.S. Lewis' essays—they tend to be more erudite than his books, and many of them are quite brilliant. The Jade Knight 06:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Be careful in your summations... I know a man as you describe who's views seem overly simplistic and questioned him as to the copy of St. Matthew he carried in his left breast pocket what proof wine was that in the pocket on the right. He said he did not know what proof had been inside the bottle for a passerby had handed him the name of a website written on the bottle’s label. The name of the website was hand written and in barely visible red ink I could hardly see it read “Wikipedia – everything not yet known by man.” 71.100.166.228 23:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow completely... What wine? Could you clarify? 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 12:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not that long ago since I made recommendations on some of the great Christian texts. Your question, Darryl, now gives me an opportunity to deepen and extend this. I take you at your word that your friend would be like to expand his understanding without being placed in the risk of intellectual-or spiritual-overload! Anyway here are the texts I consider to be among the essentials, arranged in no particular order of importance;

• St. Augustine, The Confessions. This is an account of the passage from sin to sanctity by one of the great thinkers of the early church, and has the added merit of being a very good read. Slightly more demanding, and considerably longer, is his magnum opus, The City of God.

• Thomas a Kempis, The Imitation of Christ. Short, accessible and profound: O quam cito transit gloria mundi-how quickly passes the glory of the world.

• John Bunyan, Pilgrim's Progress and Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners. What more need I say?

• Bishop Eusebius, A History of the Church from Christ to Constantine. The first post-biblical history of Christianity, written by a friend of Constantine the Great.

• Saint Teresa of Avila, The Life of Saint Teresa by Herself. A great book by a sixteenth century saint and mystic, one of the treasures of Spanish literature.

• Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica. This had to be on my list, especially as you asked about Aquinas. It is not difficult to read, but there is a lot of substantive material here, and it may be too high a mountain to climb in a first attempt.

• Ancinius Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy. Written by a former advisor to the Gothic king, Theodoric, on the eve of his execution. A wonderful little book, in which the author explores the path to ultimate truth through the revelations of philosophy.

I would be happy to answer further questions you may have on any of the above. Best wishes. Clio the Muse 23:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to say it, but I will anyway: Clio's picks are all winners (though I might hesitate to put Eusebius or the whole Summa Theologica in your friend's hands before any of the others; there are various short introductions to Thomas' ideas that make an easy introduction, with titles such as A Summa of the Summa, A Shorter Summa, and Aquinas's Shorter Summa: Saint Thomas's Own Concise Version, of which I think I'm going to give my fall term Medieval Latin class Richard J. Regan's Aquinas: A Summary of Philosophy as a quick cover-to-cover read to acquaint them with the bigger scholastic project). Wareh 00:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In another vein, Life of Pi has some good philosophical/theological content, a good plot, and a vicious man-eating tiger. - AMP'd 01:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• How about Stages of Faith by James W. Fowler, Letters & Papers from Prison by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and, for a piece of fiction, The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky (I like the Pevear & Volokhonsky translation)? Just a thought ... --Keesiewonder ^talk 01:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Gospel of Thomas. He's probably never seen it, it's short, and some people think it's as close to the sayings of the historical Jesus as we'll ever get. --Wetman 04:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Saturday matinees were epochs when I was a small boy. Which three books would the time traveler take with him back to a virgin future was asked but never answered. What three works are essential? I do not know but here are two that may get your friend started looking for more:

• Tremmel, William C. Religion: What Is It? Holt, 1984. PB Text (ISBN 0-03-062834-2).

• Smith, Huston. The Religions of Man. Harper and Row, 1958. (Orig.), Repr. 1965. (ISBN 0-065-090093-1 CN43, PL); (ISBN 0-06-080021-6 P21, PL). A historical and philosophical examination of the major religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. The author’s approach to each is sympathetic and unbiased. Diligent 05:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Inferno, Dante Alighieri, of course, plus the Purgatorio and Paradiso; but almost culture-shock and if he's been schooled to regard Catholics as servants of the Devil, probably not a good idea (even though Dante rips the church and various bishops and popes to pieces IMO). At first I was going to be smart and suggestion Plato's Symposium, but that falls into the culture-shock category; but might he enjoy The Apology, do you think? Or would that shake his Faith overmuch maybe? I'm not Catholic, but thoughts of St. Francis just crossed my mind, and who's that nice poet - St. John of the Cross, no? Tolkien's actually very religious but could look demonological I suppose; and you have to be prepared for The Silmarillion, which is Tolkien's quasi-Bible of the First Age of Middle-Earth; but like C.S. Lewis all his writings are flavoured by his religion, in his case High Anglican or CoE or whatever exactly it was. And hey - the Metaphysical Poets, as styled by Penguin or Pelican or whomever compiled their collection; Herbert, Wallace, Donne et al. Especially important, tell him, to read that stuff aloud.Skookum1 06:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Afterthought: The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels. Might bend his head a bit, but may also soften him to religious readings outside the usual Christian pale. And for something just very nice, also readable, but also (again) poetry, Tennyson's Idylls of the King.Skookum1 07:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

For a good outline and interesting read, packed in a fine little book, I strongly recommend A History of God by Karen Armstrong. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

My favorite book is The Demon-Haunted World. I do not believe it talks about religion, but it is a skeptic's bible. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 19:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Godel_escher_bach, The Lazy Man's Guide to Enlightenment, MFUPATA. dr.ef.tymac 03:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How about "The Death Of Death" (Short version of the longer full title), by John Owen. That will make his head spin, and it is a lesson in logic that one can not forget if read. Zeno333 10:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You present that as one of a number of options. Another would be that they can forget it. Is that what you meant? JackofOz 13:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My thanks to everone - what a lot of great suggestions, most of it stuff I'd never heard of, and mostly stuff I can find cheap too :) Darryl Revok 14:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)