Humanities desk
< July 22	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 24 >

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.

July 23

Iran's HDI

Why does Iran have a "high" HDI (according to the most recent data in the article)? --134.10.114.238 (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read "Human Development Index"? It defines the factors that go into determining a country's index. Gabbe (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but doesn't the Iranian regime keep almost all of the country's money to themselves, forcing the people into continual poverty and starvation? --134.10.114.238 (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 April 12#Iran's HDI for this exact conversation. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do so many people assume that Iran is poor, uncivilised and uncultured? The people there belonged to a highly developed and civilised country long before the home countries of most readers of Wikipedia knew much about civilisation. Dbfirs 17:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because American knowledge of Iran is limited to "desert country near Afghanistan and Iraq that has militant fundamentalists in charge who are making a nuclear bomb." Actual knowledge of Iranian culture, history, governmental operation, or people is pretty limited. But I must say that appealing to historical civilizations is quite misleading — a lot of empires have risen and fallen over time. Just because a place was historically important doesn't mean it is today. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you just turn this into a criticizm of America? The topic is Iran.DOR (HK) (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how a country with a population of 75 million people could be 'unimportant'. But yes, the general point is that Iran is a large, complex 'developing' country with a diverse economic structure, a reasonable-ish standard of living (compared to the world average) and a political system that is a lot more complex than the simplistic propaganda put out by sections of the western media. Its claims to be a democracy are somewhat questionable, to say the least, but it is no worse than a lot of other countries in the area, and considerably better than some (though these tend to be allies of the west, so nobody says much about this...). Regarding the OP's question about 'starvation', our Health care in Iran article tells us that if anything obesity is a greater problem. Evidently they are 'developing' western-style health problems too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't implying Iran was unimportant. Just that the historical importance/prestige/relative development of a nation does not necessarily mean it retains importance/prestige/relative development today. Invoking ancient Persia to discuss modern Iran is as misleading as invoking ancient Greece to discuss modern Greece. A lot has changed between then and now. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article on economy of Iran (which is rated a "good article") goes into some detail about this. Iran has very significant oil and gas wealth, but the economy is also somewhat diversified, accounting for a relatively high HDI. Neutrality^talk 22:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic ticket for a non-local

There's a type of situation that's been a bit of a curiosity to me for quite a while. Say a person (in the United States) is taking a road trip for whatever purpose (for example let's say via this route). The person leaves point A and while on the way to point C receives a speeding ticket from the Greensburg, KS police (point B). Assuming that the person will not be back in Greensburg anytime in the near future, how does the person take care of the ticket they received passing through Greensburg, given that it would (I assume, perhaps wrongly?) need be taken care of in the Greensburg Municipal Court? Would it require a trip back to Greensburg for the express purpose of (depending on which the person chose to do) fighting the ticket in court or pleading guilty and paying the fine? Basically, if a non-local is ticketed, do they have to make a trip back to take care of the ticket in the jurisdiction's municipal court, or is there some other way that tickets of non-locals can be taken care of in US municipal courts? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 06:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the particular situation in Greensburg, KS, but as a general rule, you can take care of routine traffic violations by mail — provided you're pleading guilty (or "no contest" or "forfeiting bail" or what have you). If you want to contest it, you probably have to go back to Greensburg. I cynically surmise that this is the reason traffic cops in small towns proverbially look for out-of-towners to ticket. Of course I don't really know whether they actually do that, but it wouldn't surprise me. --Trovatore (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the Bridgeport area of Connecticut (not in Bridgeport itself), and we've been getting calls from the Vermont police about a traffic ticked my mother supposedly got in 1994 (e weren't even in Vermont in 1994, but somehow they think my mother has an unpaid ticket). In these calls, they've said that she can either mail it to them or contest it, in which case she would have to go up to the traffic court in Vermont. Some places are more tenacious about it than others; Vermont is notorious for not letting these things drop. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Note:This isn't a direct response to Northern Light's quandary. I just happen to live in VT and know a bit about our courts.) The Vermont courts allow you to pay your fines online with a credit or debit card. I'd imagine that most states have similar online systems nowadays. Dismas|^(talk) 01:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got an out of town ticket once from a state trooper. On the back of the ticket, it provided an address to the courthouse in the county seat for where I got the ticket. You sign the ticket, put in a check and mail it there. Or you check the other box and ask for a time for a hearing to plead your case, but you have to go to that county seat to argue in person. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American debt compared with Greek debt

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14258888 Is American debt something to worry about like Greek debt? How did the richest country in the world get itself into debt? 92.28.254.185 (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

America doesn't have the same problems with respect to debt as Greece does. Plenty of people, institutions and governments want to lend money to the US. Everyone is very wary of lending money to Greece, because there are doubts over whether it will actually be able to afford to pay its debts. The US economy is doing reasonably well, compared to the Greek one, and the US debt as a percentage of GDP is much lower, so there aren't similar doubts regarding the US. (There are, however, fears that the US may default for political, rather than economic, reasons because of the whole debt ceiling thing.) As for how the US got into debt - it happened in exactly the same way that anyone gets into debt. It spent more than its revenue. --Tango (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the immediate threat of US default is political, I believe the long-term threat of US default is likely, regardless of politics. That is, raising taxes and cutting benefits to levels which would seem to prevent the debt from rising further would so hobble the US and world economy that tax revenues would still not keep pace with the debt. In other words, the US debt has passed the point of no return, even though the actual default may yet be decades away, as long as others remain willing to loan the US government money. After all, how long did Bernie Madoff manage to keep his Ponzi scheme afloat ? StuRat (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a long-term result of low inflation? Higher inflation would I presume melt the debt away. 92.28.245.233 (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, because those lending money to the US gov would then just insist on higher interest rates. StuRat (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They cannot insist on a higher rate, they are stuck with their contract. 92.24.180.158 (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat probably means higher interest rates for new contracts. Flamarande (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and also investors that predict higher inflation in the future may insist on shorter terms and/or higher returns than the current inflation rate would indicate, especially if government officials start talking about using inflation to wipe out the debt. StuRat (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They cannot "insist", they either take the best deal available or walk away. 2.101.4.222 (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if enough people walk away, then bonds would not get sold and the US would improve the terms. Googlemeister (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's basic supply and demand. StuRat (talk) 01:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the US could default for more than a week or two. The government is too big to fail in a way that any given corporation is not. In the 1950s the US paid down the much larger debt from World War II (as a proportion of GDP) without ever running a surplus because the economy was growing so fast. It wasn't because of inflation, it was because trickle down supply side economics was rightly consigned to the dustbin of that era and the top bracket tax rate reached 88%. Greek corporations do not have this privilege because Greek corporations can threaten to leave (capital flight) more credibly than US corporations on balance. If there was a multilateral tax haven treaty in effect, then capital flight would not be a problem. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, I don't think the Constitution allows the US to default on its debts (I guess we would have to if revenues were less than the debt payments, but that has not happened yet). The problem is that the Constitutional provisions mean that debt payments must be given priority over other expenditures (paying for the military, entitlements, roads, salary checks to Congressmen, etc). The US actually has more than enough revenue to meet its current debt payments (so no default... the creditors will get paid), but making those payments will not leave enough to cover all of the other things the government wants to do. (the remaining revenue can cover some of it... but not all of it). The hard question is... what will be cut from the budget? (I doubt it will be Congress's salaries) Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it can be turned over into paying deposit account receipts instead of debt. Why shouldn't anyone keeping their money on deposit with a government instead of in the economy have to pay for the privilege? The market seems to agree. Once again, the US proves that even if you screw up, if you're clearly capable of doing the right thing, even the investors looking for the lowest risks will let it slide. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article List of sovereign states by public debt gives comparative information. Most economists believe the difficulties created by debt are best measured by the ratio of debt to GDP. For Greece the ratio given in the table is 144%; for the US it is only 59%. The country with the worst debt problem by this measure is Japan, with a ratio of a whopping 226%. Note that these are unofficial estimates by the CIA and Eurostat; the IMF gives somewhat different values. Looie496 (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that article, I assume that the 50% higher USA estimate by the IMF includes the debts of each individual state in the USA. For the UK figure, are local council debts included? Dbfirs 07:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Hancock's ships

Do lists, engravings, paintings, letters, or any other documents survive which identify the ships that John Hancock used to create and maintain his wealth?75.82.160.175 (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. This book (1898) has some extensive business correspondence of Hancock's including ship references. We even have an article on one of Hancock's ships, which was involved in a 1768 incident: The sloop Liberty. Another ship of the Hancocks was the Lydia (see here), perhaps named after Hancock's aunt Lydia (Henchman) Hancock. The Lydia was engaged in transporting "a valuable load of Spanish wine" (see here) when it was involved in the same 1968 incident as the Liberty.

What other goods did John Hancock, his uncle Thomas Hancock, and other relatives carry? Pretty much everything: Thousands of pounds of tea; food; tools; clothing; rum (see here); whale oil and baleen (or whalebone) (see here); and on one occasion "a handsome new carriage for himself and expensive table linen, fraudulently listed as canvas" (here). Neutrality^talk 21:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take the "fraudulently listed as canvas" charge with a grain of salt: that was a claim made by Tory writer John Mein in an attempt to weaken the Patriot nonimportation movement.

I've never seen a list of Hancock's ships. He bought and sold quite a few of them. He bought a vessel that he christened the Last Attempt in 1768. He had a brig at the time of the Boston Tea Party called the Hayley, presumably named after British politician George Hayley, with whom Hancock did business. Hancock's famous sloop Liberty was named in honor of Hayley's brother-in-law, John Wilkes, the "friend of liberty". The Liberty was of course confiscated by the British, and then burned by colonists in 1769. The brigantine Lydia was wrecked in 1772. Hancock shipped relatively little tea, but he did have a vessel in the 1770s called Undutied Tea. Another was called Whalebone. Both were sold in 1776, bringing Hancock's shipping career to a close. After that, real estate transactions and collecting old debts were his primary sources of income. —Kevin Myers 14:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poking around Google Books reveals more ship names. Hancock owned a brigatine named Harrison in 1766, when the Stamp Act was repealed. He had a brig named Paoli, after Pascal Paoli. —Kevin Myers 14:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're still there, the first ship owned by Thomas and John seems to have been the Boston Packet, built by special order in 1763 and described as a "prime going Ship" of 160 tons. ([1]) The ship was joined by a second, the Lydia, the following year. Fowler, John Hancock's biographer, seems to say that these were the only two ships wholly owned by Hancock in 1767 (the pivotal year when the Townshend Acts were passed), and that he only owned shares in other vessels at that time. If my dates are correct, Hancock's shipping career lasted just 13 years (1763 to 1776). Thomas Hancock apparently built the fortune not on shipping, but on trading. Nine ships owned or partially owned by John Hancock include, in roughly chronological order, Boston Packet, Lydia, Harrison, Liberty, Paoli, Hayley, Last Attempt, Undutied Tea, and Whalebone. —Kevin Myers 14:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renting floor trading privileges and exchange memberships

The Steve Fossett article says this is how he made his fortune. But the sources cited for this do not actually mention it. How exactly did renting exchange memberships or floor trading priviliges work? 92.28.245.233 (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stock exchange#ownership touches on this. Securities exchanges' members are allowed to charge a commission for the transactions of their clients. Often there are a limited number of "seats" which the members may buy, sell, or lease. If a member holds at least one seat, they can generally make trades without commissions. 99.2.148.119 (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morphine-A Soldiers Disease

I have been trying to find information on the uses of morphine in the civil war and the ill effects it had on the soldiers at the time. Is there documentation that the uses of morphine created thousands of addicts? I am looking specically for information supporting the theory of "A soldiers Disease"Hpersons (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unique to soldiers or morphine, as all opiates used as pain-killers can be addictive, although to varying degrees. Heroin was specifically intended to avoid the addictive effects of morphine, but had the same problem. StuRat (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Straight Dope article might be useful. It suggests that morphine was very widely prescribed during the war, and addiction to opiates was widespread in the US in the late 19th century, but the two facts were not directly linked: for example, the majority of opium addicts were women. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of soldiers used hard drugs during the Vietnam war but only a small fraction continued used them after coming home. People don't seem to automatically become addicts if it is used to treat a real problem and then the environment changes and it isn't needed. Dmcq (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suspect that genetic factors cause some people to become addicted, while others do not. It would be nice if we could determine if those factors are present in each patient, before choosing to use a particular opiate. For those patients at the highest risk for addiction, other options, such as comas imposed by medication for the most severe cases, might be considered. StuRat (talk) 04:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem is that you're looking for morphine, which I don't think was widely available in the Civil War - rather opium was the anaesthetic of choice, as it had been since Paracelsus reintroduced it to Europe. (note that the hypodermic needle was invented (in modern form) in 1857) Wnt (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Authors and LLCs

Since it's so easy and inexpensive, in most states in the US, to form an LLC, I was wondering how often authors of books (particularly authors of tell-alls or unauthorized biographies) form an LLC (with a single owner or not) to act legally as the author of their book. The author would transfer all rights to the LLC, or would even write the book whilst in the role of the manager and a member of the LLC, such that the LLC is the author of the book, legally. Whenever the LLC receives revenue, the author performs a draw and gets the money right away. If the author is sued for something like libel or possibly even something like copyright infringement, then the LLC (the legal author) is who's liable, so if there were a large court judgment, the author would fold the LLC and future lawsuits would only be able to challenge the empty husk of the defunct LLC. The author's historical revenue could not be taken from him.

Assuming there were no fraud involved such that there could be a piercing of the corporate veil, the only disadvantage I can think of is that I think a natural human author has much lengthier copyright benefits. Do any authors do this? Who? (I do expect a full explanation to be longer than a normal Reference Desk answer, so any pointers to articles are welcome.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Court cases are decided by jurists and juries, who may or may not act as if the corporate veil is open for any corporation comprised of one person. Books are often commissioned in advance from publishers. While what you suggest may seem fair to you, as someone trying to answer your questions, it seems a lot to me like you are trying to solicit legal advice. I am sorry this answer is not as comprehensive as you might like, but if you want an authoritative answer you will have to ask an attorney. Also, would the LLC and the individual both pay income tax? 99.2.148.119 (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are jumping to conclusions when you write that I think it's fair, and that I'm looking for legal advice. I just want to know whether this rather obvious strategy is a strategy that any authors currently use, and why or why not. To answer your last question, in the US, an LLC normally elects "S" taxation, which means that the LLC is not directly taxed by the IRS; rather, its revenues "fall through" to the individual tax returns of the partners, proportional to their capital interest in the LLC. (Both LLCs and (most) corporations in the US can elect "S" taxation, as above, or "C" taxation, in which the company's income is taxed, and owners pay ordinary income tax when they receive dividends or other payouts.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't give statistics, but as a voracious reader and lifelong book collector, and former bookseller and later publisher's editor, I glance at the publishing details on the Title page verso of every book I buy and/or read, and as OR can say that a book's being copyrighted to a LLC rather than the author's name has not been uncommon over the last half century - I'd guess at about 1 author in 30. It's more usual when an author has become particularly prolific and successful, presumably because making the author the employee of the LLC, which may also have other employees such as secretaries and researchers, has more tax advantages when the revenue from the writing is greater, though I'm unfamiliar with the details: one example is Isaac Asimov, whose later works are "© Nightfall Inc".

Sometimes, of course, writers are merely commissioned by the owner of an intellectual property to produce for a fee 'work for hire' that remains the copyright of the owner, who may be another author (see Ellery Queen) or the publisher, the estate of a dead author (see for example V. C. Andrews), or a corporation (frequent with novelisations of media properties such as Star Trek). Such works may appear under the real writer's name, the late author's name, or a House name (aka Collective name) depending on the circumstances. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.33 (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great answer — thanks! The Asimov copyright may be a fruitful place for me to research next. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it would be of further help, I can (but not before Monday) check and confirm some other writers I half-remember as having done the same thing; I'm fairly sure that Robert Silverberg, John Brunner and "Ed McBain" do/did so, for example. I'd also suggest that a dedicated writers' forum such as Absolute Write would be likely to repay exploration and querying. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.193 (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that 29 authors out of 30 keep the copyright over their work and only in 1 case in 30 the copyright holder is an LLC? I got the impression that, in almost all cases, the author has to cede the copyrights to the publisher. 88.8.79.148 (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the author does not usually cede their copyright to the publisher. While IANAL, my clear understanding over some years of employment in (and many more of interest in) the 'Book Trade' is that ordinarily (i.e. my vague estimation of 29/30 cases) the copyright remains with the author as an individual, as demonstrated by the author's name (or pseudonym) following the "©" on the verso - a legal declaration. That copyright holder then grants the publisher the right to publish and market the book in specified territories (which may be "worldwide") and within various other parameters specified in their agreed contract: in some cases (my notional 1 in 30) the author themself forms an LLC of which they are the main (and possibly only) "employee" - the publisher then pays the advance and royalties to that LLC which in turn pays the author, this being advantageous for tax reasons in certain times, places and circustances.

Retention of copyright by the writer may however not apply if the writer has been commissioned by someone else to produce the work. To take the Star Trek example I introduced above, Paramount own the copyright to the general franchise, and retain copyright in the books (etc) they pay writers to produce within it (and which in this case appear under the writers' own names rather than a 'house name').

All this reflects relatively modern practice. I believe however that in the 19th century and earlier, it was quite common for an author to sell his copyright in a work to the publisher outright for a one-off fee. Further pertinent information might be found in the Copyright article.{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.154 (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be that your experience in the 'Book Trade' is mainly related to fictional books? I did some lil' OR (in my own book shelf, I know, not very significant), but in the case of non-fictional books the copyright holder was normally the publishing house, whereas, in the case of modern fiction, the author was the copyright holder. 88.8.79.148 (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, no: as an Academic & General bookseller I dealt with both, and as an editor I handled mainly school science textbooks. I admit I was unconsciously thinking more of fiction, but in my experience non-fiction textbooks were still more often copyrighted to the author(s) rather than the publisher, though the latter also occurred. I should perhaps specify that my period of professional involvement was in the UK and ended some 20 years ago. I suspect practices vary somewhat according to the subjects involved, from country to country, and over time. Even if I was prepared to perform a similar survey of the 12,000 or so books on my shelves (about 85/15 fiction/fact), it would likely only reflect my idiosyncratic selection. Publishing is so wide a field (I have comparatively little knowledge of practices in the large genre of modern romance for example) that I suspect we'd need real statistics from professional bodies to get reliable numerical answers. Perhaps the Publishers Association might be able to supply relevant information. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.97 (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, the exact opposite standard works in the field of songwriting; songwriters rarely own the copyright on their songs personally, most often the copyright is held by a Music publisher; sometimes this is done in cases where there is a songwriting partnership, or when a band writes songs collaboratively (for example, Northern Songs was the official holder of the copyright on Lennon-McCartney songs). However, even in cases where there is a single songwriter, the copyrights are usually held by a company; and sometimes you will see where collaborators will still maintain seperate publishing companies for songs written jointly. For example, I'm looking at the liner notes to Mighty Like a Rose, and tracks written by Elvis Costello (usually credited under a variation on his birthname of Declan MacManus) solely are copyrighted to his publishing company "Plangent Visions Music Inc.", while those he wrote with Paul McCartney are copyrighted jointly to "Plangent Visions Music Inc./MPL Communications Ltd." The same arrangement exists on his previous album Spike. Presumably, Costello could still personally own the copyright on his songs (like most authors do), and yet he doesn't, rather like most songwriters he assigns the copyright to his publishing company. --Jayron32 05:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but my understanding is that a "publishing company" in the music business is rather different than in book publishing. I would compare the former to the sort of author's own LLC that has been under discussion, and the latter to a record's label. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.97 (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Faith

Is it possible to define faith without reference to doubt? 99.2.148.119 (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well... most of the definitions here don't reference doubt. So... yes, it is possible. Blueboar (talk) 23:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Christian doctrine the concept "faith" is never separable from the concept "doubt" because the desireable attribute "faith" is expressly defined as a grace that is superior to a simple resolution of doubt by physical evidence. John 20:29 expounds this as follows: Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.. This carries an implicit criticism of Thomas for having doubted by comparing him to those whose faith is unwavering. The name of "doubting Thomas" is omitted from many manuscripts and translations. Here I quoted the KJV. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, because faith is a grace, no personal credit should be attributed to him who has faith and no criticism should be made of him who does not, because neither of them has any control over it. According to the dogma, faith is given by God, not created by humans. So it's not Thomas's fault that he doubted, and the ones who did believe are not the snowy-haired boys of the scriptures. But people have always been looked down upon for "losing or abandoning their faith", as if it was somehow their personal responsibility. And they've been rewarded by God for having faith (like one of the thieves crucified alongside Jesus, who got immediate entry into Heaven), when faith itself was a gift from God in the first place. This has always confused and troubled the child-like brain that I was always exhorted to retain. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not a Christian, but I believe the canonical answer is that personal credit has nothing to do with the matter: people are granted salvation not because they have earned it, but because Jesus earned it for them via his sacrifice. Looie496 (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so all humans born after the crucifixion are automatically saved, and Hell has had no new visitors for 2,000 years and will never have any. But that's not exactly the message the church has ever given out. Quite the opposite. One has to earn the right to get to Heaven by remaining in a state of grace by being virtuous and not committing sin. Death could come at any time, and if you're not in a state of grace when that happens, bad luck, you're off to the fires of Hell or at least a very long stay in Purgatory. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like Catholic soteriology. I thought you were Orthodox, Jack? --Trovatore (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was this really meant to be about Christianity? HiLo48 (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, it has drifted off-topic and we should call a halt. Tks, HiLo.

But no, I'm not Orthodox, Trovatore. I was raised as a Catholic, then decided organised religion of any description was not for me. I was married in a Russian Orthodox church but I was not required to convert. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

If you're interested in where I think you got confused, from a Catholic perspective, I'm pretty sure you've confused grace and faith. If I capitalise the special cases it might help: if you say faith is a grace, you are using a different meaning of the word 'grace' to the usual one in this case, and hence confusing yourself. For God's grace, I will write 'Grace': this means the Grace from God that is made available to us through the Sacraments, and which allows us to find favour with him. It can also come in other ways (God is not bound by the Sacraments), but we know that the ordinary way to receive Grace is through the Sacraments left to us.

Faith, then, follows from Grace, but not automatically. This is where free will starts to play a role: Grace allows us to choose faith, but we can still reject it because we have free will. And our faith must involve doing right things, according to Jesus's teachings, or it is dead faith: and, doing right things can lead us to a deeper faith. And it should lead us to the Sacraments, where we can receive more Grace which makes our faith stronger, which leads us to do more right things, but we can still reject it. For example, Adam and Eve in the garden were supposed to be without sin and full of Grace, but they still rejected God's instructions and sinned. This is an example of the difference between Grace and faith, and they were punished for their actions.

So, there you have it. I'm not meaning to follow you around, spouting Catholic dogma! It just looked like you were genuinely missing something because of a bit of word confusion, which seemed silly to leave. 86.164.65.192 (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Check out the first [proper]volume of Maimonides' Mishneh Torah. You can find it online starting from here --Dweller (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]