Humanities desk
< December 16	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	Current desk >

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.

December 17

Question about the Ontario sperm donor law

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/12/ontarios-new-surrogacy-and-sperm-donation-law-is-both-awesome-and-terrible/

I have a question--could a man and a woman who want to avoid pregnancy have a similar agreement in Ontario in the event that their sexual intercourse results in unplanned pregnancy and in the birth of a child?

Indeed, any information on this? Futurist110 (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your question! Wikipedia celebrates curiosity. We are sorry that you haven't received a reply, but these reference desks are staffed by volunteers. Apparently, none of our current staff feel they have the expertise or knowledge to answer your question.

You may find answers elsewhere. One excellent resource is a real-life reference desk, staffed by professional librarians. There may be one in your area, often at a central branch of a public library system. In addition, your national library (e.g. the British Library) may allow online reference requests. An alternative is the New York Public Library's ASK service, which operates by text-chat and telephone. Here's a news article explaining how they work, which describes them as a "human Google".

Please feel free to ask us another question in the future, or indeed to re-post your original question (perhaps re-wording it) after a week or so, as there may be a different set of volunteer editors reading the page then. We apologize for not being able to help you at this time. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The law talks about "pre-sex agreements", but if you feel that it's vital that your agreement with the woman is legally valid and binding, I strongly suggest having it drawn up by a lawyer proficient in the area. (Ditto with Prenuptial agreements, for that matter. Or Wills). There are probably rules that need to be met in order for such an agreement to be deemed binding in the event that it was challenged in court. (e.g. some jurisdictions require that both parties each receive separate legal advice from different lawyers before they sign). That's certainly the case with prenuptial agreements and wills in many jurisdictions, and I presume Ontario's law is likely similar. (I am NOT giving legal advice - I am simply explaining to the OP WHY he should get legal advice, and even further, have a lawyer draw up the actual agreement). Also note whether the law has yet come into effect! You might also find it useful to contact the Government body which overseas the regulation of ART, although I doubt they would be able or allowed to offer legal advice, beyond supplying you with the full text of the relevant law(s) - or, more likely, telling you how to find it online. Eliyohub (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What did people call James Thurber in high school?

From what I have read, James Thurber was known as Jamie in elementary school and junior high and went by Jim in college and beyond. One question I can't find the answer to anywhere: Did Thurber go by Jamie or Jim when he was in high school? Ta Chitsu Te To (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your question! Wikipedia celebrates curiosity. We are sorry that you haven't received a reply, but these reference desks are staffed by volunteers. Apparently, none of our current staff feel they have the expertise or knowledge to answer your question.

You may find answers elsewhere. One excellent resource is a real-life reference desk, staffed by professional librarians. There may be one in your area, often at a central branch of a public library system. In addition, your national library (e.g. the British Library) may allow online reference requests. An alternative is the New York Public Library's ASK service, which operates by text-chat and telephone. Here's a news article explaining how they work, which describes them as a "human Google".

Please feel free to ask us another question in the future, or indeed to re-post your original question (perhaps re-wording it) after a week or so, as there may be a different set of volunteer editors reading the page then. We apologize for not being able to help you at this time. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this LIFE article is any evidence, he went by Jim: "In high school Jim wrote poems about his pet dogs, Scottie and Rex, but je never made the staff of X-Rays, the school paper." Cilantrohead (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Half-brothers

Are there any known examples of half-brothers of the same father being born on the same day (not twins)?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The results of a quick google search are rife with anecdotal tales in various forums/advice pages. Also, as a side, there are also non-twin half-brothers with different fathers (same mother) born on the same day (see heteropaternal superfecundation).--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 09:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fiscal conservatism and social conservatism

Why does fiscal conservatism often go hand in hand with social conservatism?Uncle dan is home (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? When did you stop beating your wife?--Jayron 32 18:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Not always though. Just read about the Republican Party. Wikipedia says its ideologies are fiscal conservatism, social conservatism and classical liberalism.

There's a book I'm not having much luck finding refs to. Maybe I don't remember the title correctly. I thought it was called something like The Conservative Coalition in the United States, but the hits I see are not the book I'm thinking of.

I think it came out in the 90s or so. The thesis was that American conservatism (you didn't say American but I think that's what you mean) is a coalition between three disparate broad groups: The Eastern Establishment traditionalists, the social-conservative Christian right, and libertarians. These groups don't have a lot naturally in common; what they mostly have is a common enemy, namely the increasing power of the Federal government under the program of so-called modern liberalism.

It's not a naturally cohesive alignment, but it has been remarkably resilient, I suppose because so has its common enemy. I thought it might break up under the stresses created by Donald Trump. (Actually I was hoping for it — as a libertarian, I would rather be aligned with the civil-liberties faction of the left, hoping to prise that faction away from the identity-politics faction.) But that does not seem to have happened, maybe because Trump won. --Trovatore (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is that conservatives value money more than anything else. To quote Richard Armour's definition: "A conservative is a man who saves his money - even before women and children." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a complete nonsense response to this particular question. --Trovatore (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fiscal record of the last 35 years suggests that the GOP has no real interest in fiscal conservatism, except when it sounds good as a campaign promise. DOR (HK) (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lovely quote in Jon Stewart's America (The Book):

"Each party has a platform, a prix fixe menu of beliefs making up its worldview. The candidate can choose one of the two platforms, but remember - no substitutions. For example, do you support universal health care? Then you must also want a ban on assault weapons. Pro-limited government? Congratulations, you are also anti-abortion. Luckily, all human opinion falls neatly into one of the two clearly defined camps. Thus, the two-party system elegantly reflects the bichromatic rainbow that is American politcal thought."

In the U.S. political system, there are certain barriers to entry for third parties which pretty much eliminate any meaningful acknowledgement of nuanced political positions not aligned with the two main-party platform bundles. It's difficult to shift a plank from one party to the other, so once a coalition is established, it tends to stick—no matter how uncomfortable the bedfellows become. (See also realpolitik.) Enjoy the bichromatic rainbow.

Note that there exist many other countries where social versus fiscal conservatism are very much independent concepts with very distinct political parties and associations—and sometimes very different meanings (in many places, the idea that massive deficits resulting from massive tax cuts are sustainable and desirable is the opposite of "conservative" fiscal thinking). Consider the List of political parties in Sweden, in which one finds the Moderate Party, which embraces liberal conservatism (which would surely be an oxymoron in U.S. politics); or the Sweden Democrats, who are nationalist social conservatives.... In other words, the marriage between fiscal and social conservatism is often strained, and often an artifact of the U.S. two-party system. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic lawsuit against public participation

Hi, in this section the use of anti-SLAPP laws by the government (!) is mentioned. But is this actually realistic? I mean, why should a petition or anything alike be a form of SLAPP the government could claim to oppose to? I don't quite see how that is supposed to work. Thus, I'be very grateful for any explanation! Best regards--Hubon (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exact repeat of this question. --ColinFine (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the sole edit from an IP editor; it's possible it's not well considered. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

technically unresolved wars

In a second-hand bookshop I once found an almanac of 193x, opened it at random and learned that Liechtenstein was still technically at war with Prussia (or some such) because of an omission in a treaty. Does one of you happen to know how much truth there is to this assertion, and what other examples (may) exist, present or past? —Tamfang (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That goes back to the 1866 Austro-Prussian War - the article includes a mention of Liechtenstein. This link - http://www.berwickfriends.org.uk/history/berwicks-war-with-russia/ - discusses the similar situation of Berwick-on-Tweed still being at war with Russia (going back to the Crimean War). Other examples are here - List of wars extended by diplomatic irregularity Wymspen (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Berwick example is an often-repeated myth, discussed in our article on Berwick-upon-Tweed. Warofdreams talk 01:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A rather funny example is the "peace treaty" concluded some years ago between the mayors of Athens and Sparta, which supposedly was to end the Peloponnesian War of 431–404 BC [1]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

THIS! IS! SPARTAAA!!!! Spartans must be so tired of tourists who come to their town and say that. They need to make a well, put a trampoline a few meters down (not too bouncy) and charge admission to be kicked in. Ancient costume rental and changing rooms. Extra charge for the slow motion camera, doing it in similar weather to the movie. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They probably get even by making lots of profits off the tourists, for their Spartan hotel rooms (empty, windowless, unheated rooms) and Spartan restaurant meals (bread and water). :-) StuRat (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Visiting Lansing, I got a chuckle from a sign saying SPARTAN LOUNGE. —Tamfang (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pull up a rock and have a seat ! StuRat (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

The Korean War is unresolved, but it's more than just a technicality, in this case, as it might actually start up again some day. StuRat (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Have warriors ever practiced intraperitoneal insemination?

One of the weirder things about mammalian biology is that the Fallopian tube is not a closed structure, but rests open on the surface of the ovary. This can cause ectopic pregnancy and has few obvious benefits. But in other species, such as sea slugs that practice penis fencing, the direct penetration of the body wall can lead to pregnancy. This also is apparently possible in humans and other mammals.[2][3]

Which begs a question: has this ever been done in warfare in recorded history? I imagine that a warrior tribe could charge hunting arrows or more specialized primitive missiles with semen, and hope to impregnate some fraction of the women of an opposed tribe by shooting them. If the tribes were distinguished by some obvious ethnic difference, this might lead to the ejection of the children to become recruits, or fusion of the tribes, or, well, anything, depending on culture. If, that is, it's ever happened! Wnt (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a story about a woman in the American Civil War who was inseminated by a bullet that passed through someone's scrotum before it got into her, but apparently it's a fake. --TammyMoet (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas about using an ice bullet has also been dismissed, which likely closes another firearm option. Besides, most modern countries don't define themselves by race, though I suppose the ever-loving Serbians might have found a use for something like that in Bosnia. I was thinking more about old-time weaponry and old-time warfare - arrows, spears, maybe a champion blowdart could penetrate? Wnt (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were perhaps thinking of this kind of primitive missiles ? ( but the keyword is stemmen, not semen. --Askedonty (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might take some time to reload though ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What an odd idea. You're much more likely to kill your intended victims than inseminate them, especially with that miniscule target area. Would sperm even survive that particular method of delivery? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the sperm stayed on the arrow head during flight, and if they were not removed during the arrow's passage through flesh and other organs, and if they hit at exactly the right point (with only a few millimetres leeway), and if it happened at exactly the moment of ovulation, and if a sperm managed to fertilise the egg, and if the woman survived the serious wound, then I suppose there would be a very slight chance of this producing a viable infant. It would also need to be a warrior group with a remarkably advanced knowledge of anatomy and reproductive biology to work out exactly what was required. However, capture and rape has always been a part of warfare, has produced plenty of pregnancies, and would probably have been the warriors' preferred method. Wymspen (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the leeway is that small. The whole concept of "intraperitoneal" is that things can move around very freely within that space. An ectopic pregnancy can end up in the liver! Also note that poisoning arrows and other missiles is ancient technology - I would not expect them to mess up that part of it. The challenge with timing of ovulation is similar to that in conventional sex, and a knowledge of anatomy is not required - as with ancient herbal medicines, someone need merely have tried it once and seen it work. So provided enough swimmers are introduced into the body cavity, I suspect they'd have a chance ... though I expect no sane scientist has done the experiment. Wnt (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this discussion be moved to the Inhumanities desk? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps we should start a new desk for the infinitely improbable. Alansplodge (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a case of not seeing the forest for the trees. For the most part, women have played only a supporting, background, part in warfare on an open battlefield. The warrior with a semen-infested dart is not going to see any viable targets during the 'hot' portion of the battle - only other men (with obviously a few exceptions, but they're exceptional). After the men have been killed or otherwise subdued, it's horrifically common for women to be considered part of the spoils (see Wartime sexual violence), to be raped or sold or killed. At that point, artificial insemination is theoretically possible, but still completely pointless - it is all too easy for the women to be inseminated during the rape. Nobody would go to the trouble of ejaculating onto an arrowhead in the hopes of hitting an ovulating female when he can use the arrow to kill the enemy and then rape the women at will. The whole concept is preposterous. Matt Deres (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right, and yet... didn't they ever have a few guys sneak in to snipe at civilians near a village, then make an escape? Wnt (talk) 07:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to AGF here, but this sounds like the start of a Monty Python sketch where a group of barbarians are trying to inseminate the enemy's females, but find rape to be so last year. What you're suggesting just sounds ludicrous on the face of it. Picture the guy suggesting that: "Okay, here's the plan - we sneak into town, risking torture and death as enemy spies. We find some unsuspecting females and then... take some darts we've previously cum on and try to get them pregnant by hitting their loins with the darts." Is it literally impossible for that to have happened? No, but it's completely against every shred of both common sense and immoral urge at the same time. Matt Deres (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, Matt Deres and Wymspen seem absolutely correct, the average enemy would just rape the women (which happens all the time in warfare) if it wanted to impregnate them, not bother with the kind of tricks you're proposing, there's absolutely no point in it, and you'd be far more likely to leave the woman dead or seriously injured than successfully impregnated. In the nearest realms of reality, there are ways besides traditional rape to get a woman pregnant against her will - crude but effective ones, like secretly slipping off the condom during consensual sex. We actually have an article on Reproductive coercion, and semen-tipped projectiles tellingly do not feature. On the flip side, if you wanted to render the enemy infertile, much easier - you'd just develop some more infectious version of Chlamydia, and if the enemy had antibiotics, breed an antibiotic-resistant strain. Though beware, it may backfire on your own female population if you don't have an antibiotic which will still work. Eliyohub (talk) 07:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did the Nazis say anything about the English Noel carol?

Noel, Noel, Noel, Noel born is the King of Israel. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The carol is not breaking new theological ground:-

'After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written: ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel"'. Matthew Ch. 2

See also Jesus, King of the Jews for context (note that before 1947, "Israel" meant the Twelve Tribes of Israel rather than a country). The Nazis were not overly concerned with Christian theology except where it could be turned to their advantage and adopted a neo-pagan belief system for their own use. Theirs was much more of a racial antisemitism than a religious antisemitism. BTW, the carol is not unknown in German: Noël, Noël, Noël, Noël, geboren ist der König von Israel.Alansplodge (talk)

The Nazis had a well-documented dislike for Christianity, but did not want to take the flack for banning it outright. There are some things I recall reading they enacted like having Catholic schools take down crucifixes and replace them with pictures of Hitler, having churches keep Mein Kampf on the altar. They set up some kind of "Hitler's Camelot" (Wewelsburg) with pagan motifs and promoted Nazi art based on pagan German religion. To this day neo-Nazis deface their precious white skin with those stupid little runes that recall the awe and wonder that the primitive pagans felt when they ran across a rare highly enlightened soul who could sound out the words of the dead when they saw a bunch of them carved on something. I doubt that singing obsequiously about the King of Israel was a great way to be liked at party HQ, and I bet not being liked meant not being safe... but not all they did was quite so predictable as to qualify as a law, exactly. We have a whole article religious aspects of Nazism, I see -- they adapted Marcionism into a "Positive Christianity" to censor Jewish elements from their version of the Bible, so I wouldn't expect hymnals in those churches to include that particular selection. Wnt (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Think that without a time machine this is pointless question to ask. Who knows if a prophet had INRI upon his cross. Barbarous also means Bar- rabbi. i.e. this may refer to a rabbi that was let off from crucifixion. So maybe, he did not have to raise from the dead. Religion and historical fact can often get horribly confused. I believe that Ἰησοῦς 'was' a historical figure (from latin records) which over time, religion, politic etc. has made a mush of it all. I even went to the trouble of learning to read Koine Greek in an effort to satisfy my my mind. Therefore, IMHO what the nazis thought is not worth thinking about. Not saying that “a”psychotic is not worth listening to. They often have amazing insights. But the nazis party where out of touch with reality. So take my advice and don’t' try to understand their mush. Think Joseph Goebbels.--Aspro (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barbarous means "not speaking Greek" - did you mean Barabbas. That is usually understood to mean "son of a father" - implying that his father's identity was unknown. If it could mean "son of a rabbi" it could not have been applied to Jesus, who was the son of a carpenter. Wymspen (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, meant Barabbas (thanks). On the point that it could not have been applied to Jesus, who was the son of a carpenter. This is what confounded to Romans during their occupation. They thought they had the priesthood subjugated and thus the country but the priesthood were just the ceremonial “razzmatazz”. The faith was (and some might say still is) preserved the hands of the common rabbi. I.E., any family man who for pro bono publico reasons, is the local communities keeper of the faith. A simple carpenter can fill that role - should he so commit himself . Even Thomas the Apostle is regarded as a builder. So, the 'historical' individual Ἰησοῦς could have been regarded as a Rabbi by his contemporaries and a Bar- Rabbi. Which can get concatenated into Barabbas, even though he is is not regarded as a Messiah in the Hebrew faith.--Aspro (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it was Bar-Abbas, not Ba[r]-rabbas, which would make no sense in Hebrew or Aramaic, surely? {The poster formerly known as 8781.230.195} 90.200.136.117 (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One last point, in England we generally sing The First Nowell rather than Noël. We can't be having French-speaking angels can we? Alansplodge (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have this in England? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not previously as far as I know. The penultimate line is germane: "We've ruined it completely so we'll all say 'Ah well'"... Alansplodge (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, it didn't catch on. More common variants are "and if you ever saw it, you would even say it glows (like a lightbulb!)/you'll go down in history (like the dinosaurs!)" and "Jingle bells! Batman smells! Robin laid an egg!" Are these sung in England? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are more parodies of "Jingle Bells" than you can shake a stick it, if that's your idea of a good time. Such as: "Rust and smoke / The heater's broke / The door just blew away... Oh what fun it is to drive / This rusty Chevrolet..." And: "Yingle bells, yingle bells, yingle all de vay... I should have vorn long undervare on dat vun horse open sleigh..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noël Coward is the only Noël in England. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does that make him the first (and also last) Noël? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 2017th Noel the angels did say oh shit what'd they do?, Armageddon's next year. No air, no air without isotopes, this is what happens when you give them free will. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really get the relevance of whether Jesus was regarded as a Rabbi. The question is whether his father was. Nil Einne (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember rightly, there are some who think that the Greek word tektōn, usually translated "carpenter", could be a calque of the Aramaic word naggar, "craftsman", which is sometimes used metaphorically to mean "scholar" or "learned man", and that the Gospels could have misunderstood Jesus' family trade. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Jesus' father was God, does God qualify as a rabbi? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to refer to the historical figure as Ἰησοῦς and the spiritual figure as Jesus. The historical figure was an issue from a union between man and woman, the spiritual figure Jesus was born of a virgin birth which was an Egyptian conceptions. Keep those two thing separate and it makes not only both sense but provides sound foundations for what ever faith one holds to. The three Magji refer to a conjunction. Modern computer may not be able to prove anything but when a pope demanded a date for the present age to fix the calender, an a astronomer came up with that date that we now call 1 AD ( don't know what happened to nought AD but there we go) but computations confirms this - mathematically. All the other stuff about Joseph having to go back to Bethlehem is baloney . There was no census. It was Matthew writing this to suggest that a prophecy was fulfilled. God was not the father of Ἰησοῦς. A man was. Jesus (the spiritual figure) was not a son of god either (to suggest God being a Rabbi is far too demeaning anyway for an Absolute), because Jesus was of a virgin birth (in the Egyption concept) where he came about and is continuously reborn by Virgin Birth. Keep these things separate. --Aspro (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ιησους (squiggly upsilon doesn't work on my phone) is the Greek. His name should be Aramaic, no? (Jeshua transliterated). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NO, Greek, not Aramaic, was apparently the lingua franca of the era. Historians criticised Gibson's (in)famous film in this respect. He used Aramaic, they told him he got it wrong, the typical language was in fact Greek. Eliyohub (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Faith is not baloney. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're pretty far afield here, but it's worth noting that Jesus is generally described as the "son of Man", which is actually more unique than a "son of God", a phrase used rather widely in the Bible. ("the sons of God took the daughters of men, and found them to be fair...") A lot of sources don't say very much about it; IMHO the Nietschzean concept of Übermensch seems incidentally instructive. The story of Pandera is often taken as a strong argument against the virgin birth, but I would suggest it is actually the strongest argument I've heard for the virgin birth, a miracle less Hollywood but of much greater spiritual meaning. Wnt (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]