Humanities desk
< March 15	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 17 >

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 16

Latin and the Bible

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew. The New Testament was written in Greek. What about Latin? Bonupton (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no Latin in the original texts, but fragments of the Hebrew Bible might have been translated into Latin before Christianity started, and there were a few different attempts to translate the Bible in the first centuries of the Church, before Jerome translated the standard Vulgate in the 4th century. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew, Greek & Aramaic. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not much Aramaic - ablout 250 verses, mostly in Daniel and Ezra. 109.150.174.93 (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New Testament was written in Greek - there is no Latin apart from a few personal or place names, and even those are written in the Greek alphabet. When things were first translated into Latin is unclear: the earliest Latin manuscripts date from about 350 CE, but the first translations must have happened before then. Once the Vulgate came into use, a lot of older translations seem to have been destroyed, to avoid confusion. 109.150.174.93 (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good bet that the Latin Bible was written in Latin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

God Too Good For Hell

Annihilationists and universalists believe that God is too good for and to condemen people to hell. Is that true?

Bonupton (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How the h*** would we know? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the OP is asking if it's true what those groups believe, then it's answerable. As to the nature of God, there's no way to know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)If you mean "are annihilationism or universalism true," or "is their view of God accurate," -- If anyone was capable of answering that question, there would be no different religions, merely different sects within the same religion (if that).

If you mean "do annihilationists and universalists believe that God is too good to send people to hell," that could potentially be answered. In the case of Universalism (more specifically, Universal reconciliation), that's probably the simplest way to summarize their views on the matter. In the case of Annihilationism, it is not so much a matter of the goodness of God but the weakness of humanity; annihilationists believe that the soul is mortal and will die with the body. In fact, it's possible to argue that they're on opposing beliefs. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that all believers in all monotheistic gods would claim that their deity is both omniscient and omnipotent. Most refuse to allow that their god's powers are limited in any way whatever. So no matter what, they should logically admit that their god might decide to toss someone in hell (or even create a formerly non-existent hell and toss someone into it) despite previously saying that they won't. It all boils down to what believers expect their god to do - not to what they can absolutely guarantee (s)he will do.

So if you're a Catholic - you're supposed to believe that God will absolve your sins if you're truly penitent - and there is no hell for you. But they also REFUSE to place any limitations on what God can and cannot do - so if pressed, they should (logically) admit that there is a possibility that God WON'T absolve some particularly heinous sin. Of course if he's believed to have promised to absolve all sins, then we have to ask whether holding him to his promise limits his power.

This comes down to the classic: "Can God make a rock that's so heavy that he cannot lift it?" - or in this case "Can God make a promise that's so binding that he can't break it?" - and at that point, we don't get good answers! So, it's very possible that various religions will make these claims - but if pushed into the "Rock-too-big-to-lift" hypothetical, then all bets are off. SteveBaker (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rock is dead, since 2002 AD. Long live the burrito paradox! InedibleHulk (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Year of the Bull Meese — can U.S. presidential candidates make binding agreements?

This year it has appeared possible that both Democratic and Republican party leadership in the U.S. would cast aside their most popular candidate in order to nominate a pro-Trans Pacific Partnership functionary. Conceivably, a counter to this could be a Trump-Sanders coalition ticket. My question is: is there any way for such a ticket to be genuinely bipartisan, where Trump would make a binding agreement with Sanders to make specific Cabinet appointments or to even to veto bills that Sanders opposes? Wnt (talk) 06:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen what Trump says? This is about as conceivable as a Pope-Osama bin Laden anti-secular alliance. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly see Trump running as a third party candidate if he doesn't get the Republican nod, but I don't see Sanders doing any such thing. Also, if Trump does get the Republican nomination, some of the Republicans might run their own third party candidate. So, it's a potential split in the Republicans, not the Democrats. StuRat (talk) 06:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The answers above seem to have ignored the question (in the last sentence) and instead given opinions about the scenario. That is not what this page is for. --ColinFine (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As unlikely as a Trump-Sanders third party ticket would be... if it did happen, then the answer to the question is "no"... Nothing a candidate promises to do before election is binding on their actions after election. Blueboar (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump and Sanders (aka "the Oddest Couple") could make a binding agreement. (Get it in writing and notarized, Bernie!) Whether that agreement could extend to the things you specified verges on legal advice I think, so mum's the word. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's only legal advice if I'm Bernie (or Trump). I hate to disappoint, but no. :) Really, we can answer legal questions provided we're not advising people. Wnt (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL. Certainly the candidate could sign a binding contract or some other legal instrument in which they promised to either do something when in office or suffer some huge penalty. The question is whether that would be enforceable once they take office - and my suspicion is "no".

There is a principle in law called Sovereign immunity which basically says that you can't sue the King when he acts as the King. See: especially Sovereign immunity in the United States. I believe this means that individual members of the government cannot be sued when they act as "the government". So I suspect that if you persuaded a presidential candidate to enter into a contract or tort or some other thing in which (s)he promised not to do some specific thing as president...then once they are in office, they could just go ahead and do that exact thing as an agent of the government. To get recourse to justice, you'd have to sue the government (on behalf of which they acted), and you can only do that if government consents to be sued. You could perhaps sue the individual once they'd left office...but even that is kinda doubtful. SteveBaker (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a claim against the sovereign, nor a tort claim for the consequences of the act: it's a claim under a private contract (which would presumably include, implicitly if not explicitly, a waiver of personal immunity). I don't know under what circumstances a party can plead external compulsion against the terms of a contract, but this isn't one, since an officer of the United States can always resign; even if that were not so, I'll bet that compulsion is an excuse only if it cannot reasonably be contemplated in advance! —Tamfang (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No - my understanding is that when the President (or King/Queen/whatever) acts in their official capacity - then it is "The Office Of The President" that's performing that action - not the individual who happens to hold that office at the present moment. For that reason, contracts entered into by the present incumbent in their personal life has no impact on their actions when they put on the mantle of office and act as "The President"...or vice-versa. But, as I said, IANAL - so I could easily be misreading this. SteveBaker (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton v. Jones held that the absolute immunity accorded to Presidents of the United States does not extend to civil suits brought against the President for "acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office". United States v. Nixon is a related, earlier case. The questions you'd want to ask with respect to whether Jones applies is (1) how "related" to the office the pre-term agreement was, and (2) whether such agreement would itself be unlawful or unenforceable (I think this is the big one). For instance, what's the penalty for breach if the President reneged on the promises when in office? If it's a financial penalty, then that would strike me as being little different than a pay to play scheme. The Hatch Act of 1939 is probably relevant to this. If it's a "you must resign" penalty, I think the sitting President could refuse to go through with that with impunity for the duration of his or her term (because a lawsuit to force the President to resign would deal directly with the President's office). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and how could I forget this: The fact pattern presented here is strikingly similar to the one in Marbury v. Madison. The courts would absolutely refuse to enforce the contract provisions (e.g., compelling the President to veto a bill or appoint a particular person to a political office) on separation of powers grounds. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The promise of the contract is not to do a specific thing as a public act, but to make a private payment under specified conditions. —Tamfang (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The contract would not be enforceable. If the agreement by Sanders lacks value, the contract would be unenforceable for lack of consideration. If the agreement by Sanders is a thing of value, then the contract would violate 18 U.S.C. § 201, which makes it a crime to give or to accept any thing of value to influence any official act. John M Baker (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that makes more sense than the immunity argument. —Tamfang (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original assumptions, when did Sen. Sanders become the Democratic Party's "most popular candidate"? HRC has a larger lead over The Bern than The Trumpet does over his adversaries. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More Trump questions

As long as I'm at it...

The Washington Post ran a weird article where they made it sound like the Republicans had some kind of plan to just walk into the Libertarian Party and take over their candidate for this year for a "third-party conservative" run. How is that even conceivable?

Getting back to a question I asked a few weeks ago, this same article says that for an independent run a candidate would need to submit a large number of nominating signatures by May 9 - months before the 2016 Republican National Convention. This would seem to imply that the RNC does have some special way of slipping whichever candidate it choose into the election when it is closed to others - a mechanism out of the hands of the candidates as individuals. So *could* they (at least in Texas) simply refuse to nominate a candidate, even if they have sufficient delegates, by somehow sabotaging their paperwork? Wnt (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's certainly conceivable - any member of senate or congree is at liberty to switch parties any time they feel like it...so, sure, anyone who sufficiently hates the idea of supporting a particular candidate is at liberty to join some other party, or become an independent - whatever they like. So if some minor party suddenly gets a huge influx of new and influential members - then they can put up their own candidate for president. If that party doesn't use the system of primaries (and they don't have to) - they can just nominate someone. So, yeah. If Rubio or Saunders (for example) decided they couldn't support Trump (probably) or Clinton (probably) then they can just declare themselves to be members of the US wing of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party (or perhaps something less inappropriate!) and stand for election as president.

People don't usually do this because without the backing of a massive party machine, it's tough to get enough funding to make a 'blip' on the publicity front - and die-hard members of their previous party would have a hard time switching allegiances to support them. But in the case of Donald Trump - enough of them hate everything he stands for - don't believe he stands a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected - and that therefore this is a wasted election and might even spell the end of the Republican party as a viable choice in the future. If that's the case, then maybe all but a few would "jump ship" - probably enough of their donors would follow them - and maybe we'll have our first Monster Raving Loonie Party president.

Getting the necessary signatures etc, isn't hard for a "serious" candidate - I doubt any of the possible Republican or Democratic party candidates would have a problem with meeting that bar. But whether the Republicans could seriously subvert their own election mechanisms to allow a person with less than a majority of delegates to stand seems dubious. However, they could certainly all march out of there, declare themselves to be "The NEW Republican Party" and write their own new rules for nominating a presidential candidate. It would be a brave step - but given the Trump-hooplah - I could certainly imagine it happening. Given how few Republican congress/senate members have stepped up to endorse him - it's hard to imagine that there won't be at least a token effort to bypass him and get a "more serious" contender in the ring.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #1: People and organizations are entirely free to come and go as they please, and are free to publicly endorse and support, with spoken and written words and their monetary donations, any person for any political office they choose. If a group of current Republicans wishes to switch affiliations and endorse the Libertarian party candidate, why can they not? Super PACs and the like are fully independent of the parties, and they are free to support any candidate they want either. Why do you think they would not be allowed to do so? --Jayron 32 15:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that new fundraising, new organizations, etc could be formed. The problem would be with cash already in hand that was pledged for "The Republican Party" - with who owns the buildings, employs the staff, finds the volunteers, provides all of the other facilities that are required to run a political party? Just do a Google Image search for "GOP headquarters building" and you'll see some very impressive multi-million dollar office complexes. Who owns those if all but three senators and one presidential candidate decide to switch to a new political party?

It just seems that there would be an enormous amount of work and money involved that goes far beyond just a bunch of senators and congressmen saying "OK! Now I belong to the NewRepublican party!". Jumping ship to another existing party (like the Libertarians) might be easier - but the culture shock of doing that - and the fact that the Libertarian party is really tiny - might easily prove problematic. After all, those people would NOT be changing their political philosophy and jumping ship to a party that's a better match for their beliefs - they'd be changing party solely because their party has changed and they DON'T want to change their beliefs. I'd imagine the Libertarians being at least somewhat unhappy at a bunch of people descending on them and demanding to change their policies to match the old 'mainstream' Republican ideas. SteveBaker (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP says: this same article says that for an independent run a candidate would need to submit a large number of nominating signatures by May 9. Is that true? I would think that each state has its own deadline to get electors on the state's November presidential ballot. Does someone know what the range of these deadlines is, and what they are for the biggest states? Loraof (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Loraof: this Guardian article, which covers similar ground to the Washington Post article) cites a "confidential study" (but leaked anyway) which ponders the logistics of running such an independent, including dates and numbers of signatures. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 20:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 2016 Libertarian National Convention is scheduled for the end of May, which is before the California primary. I'm going to make a logical leap here and infer that the LP may not be planning to pay much attention to the primaries (totally within their rights BTW). So exactly how the Republicans would hijack the convention I'm not sure. I think Gary Johnson is the presumptive nominee; unseating him would take some doing. --Trovatore (talk) 09:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Republicans would have to act fast if they want to force their own candidate onto the Libertarian ticket. The LP candidate is chosen at their convention by the delegates in attendance. This delegates are chosen at LP State Party Conventions. Looking at the Libertarian Party events calendar, it looks like the state conventions for NH, AZ, AL, MS, VA, GA, CO, IL, NJ, NV, DE, and MD have already happened. KY, IA, MO, TN, PA, & MI are this weekend. I don't think getting into the state conventions is tough. Mostly you just need to sign up as an LP member online and pay their $25 membership fee. You also have to "certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals." With enough volunteers in enough states, one could run the table at remaining state conventions and take over the LP for yourself. Since delegates come to the convention uncommitted, the right candidate (Rand Paul?) could swoop into the convention and convince enough attendees to give him the nomination. It looks like the Libertarians are currently only on 31 state ballots and missing some big states like Illinois, Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania. —D Monack (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a direct answer to how, but a note that Wikipedia has articles for this political strategy (flooding another party with one's own activists, in an attempt to overtly or covertly take it over) - entryism in general, and party raiding specifically for US politics. It would be an odd day indeed were the Republicans to really adopt a strategy so strongly linked to Trotsky. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 21:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Argonauts

Has there ever been a Satanist organisation called “the Argonauts”? I found this but I can′t find more information. 2A02:582:C76:1800:FC41:B099:42:ED84 (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Farnham played for the Toronto Argonauts, and his son Bobby is a New Jersey Devil. But the Argonauts the Devil in your link speaks of are just the classic crew. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a long-running (40 years) ABC radio program for children (of all ages) called the Argonauts Club. I'm sure they'd be horrified to know their name was also appropriated for a Satanist organisation. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "Home" link at the bottom of your page - click on that and you will find that your Argonauts are just another of the many variants on Freemasonry. 109.150.174.93 (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who really keeps Atlantis off the maps? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

meditation

what is meditation? what are the different type of meditation? what are the benefits of doing meditation? What are the research reviews on meditation practice? Which form of meditation is more effective ?how and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbrd.agtsp (talk • contribs) 16:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is meditation. If it's done its job (and you read it), you should find the other answers. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the wonderfully dubious research on meditation. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should advise them to seek the answers within themself. :-) StuRat (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

There are no selves, if you're doing it right. Socrates got it wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

An article like this makes me wonder whether meditation has identifiable risks. My general impression is that a treatment capable of real benefits has real risks and vice versa. Wnt (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot cite many sources, but meditation can definitely be abused by manipulative and exploitative cults as both a recruitment and retention tool. Ask your local Exit counselor. Reason is,some forms of meditation can involve a sense of "escape from reality", similar to drugs. Some people don't want to return to reality. So yes, there are "risks", if you like. But this doesn't mean meditation as a whole is a bad thing - just that it can be abused and misused. As long as the people who teach and practice it are responsible and decent people, I don't think you're at serious risk. But if you're thinking of joining any form of "meditation society", I'd consider it prudent to google them (the particular group) first. 110.140.60.6 (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're using an isolation tank for the first time, you might freak out like this guy. He was fine in the end, but like a (decent) roller coaster, people with some preexisting heart or brain problems might not be so lucky. If your friends are the button-down type, they might disown you as a hippie. And if you somehow happen to take the odyssey Homer did, you'll almost certainly die. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EJ Roye Building image

Does anyone have an idea where I could find a free image of the Edward J. Roye Building, a major skyscraper in Monrovia, the capital of Liberia? I've gone through Commons:Category:Buildings in Monrovia and other Commons categories about the city, but I've not found anything. Flickr appears to have just two images, both all-rights-reserved images by people who haven't uploaded anything in years (so contacting them for a license change would be pointless), and I don't know where else to look. Nyttend (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried Google Earth ? Presumably a pic from a satellite will be closer to a top view, and not have as good resolution, but it might be better than nothing. StuRat (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But Google Earth images are copyrighted, aren't they? Rojomoke (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Google seem lenient about fair use and attribution. Not free free. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could also try Panoramio. Someone might have a sufficiently licensed image there. clpo13_(talk) 05:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No such luck. Here's the area, but there are only a couple images of the building itself and both are copyrighted. I did find that "E J Roye building" brought more relevant search results than "Edward J Roye building", though, FWIW. clpo13_(talk) 05:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone. I've run a bunch of searches, most of which were rather useless, but I was able to find a bunch of results (most of the ones I used to write the article) with <"roye building" twp> (it was built for the True Whig Party, which in Liberian publications is routinely abbreviated), although that search didn't reveal any free images. "Edward J. Roye" and "E J Roye" both appear frequently in print and online publications, and we really can't say that one's more COMMONNAME than the other, so I just went with the fuller version. Nyttend (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it this building: 6°19′00″N 10°48′10″W / 6.31674°N 10.80289°W? Or this one: 6°19′02″N 10°48′09″W / 6.31722°N 10.80252°W? I'm presuming the latter, after a wee squint at the few google images returned for it. The article wants for a coordinate... --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Liberian Wikipedians contains just one editor, User:Versace1608. No idea where they are based, but you could always try contacting them to request whether they could take a picture. Warofdreams talk 21:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J. J. Geoghan

1) I´m trying to submit a query but I can´t because appears this: <<An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, and it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error>> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.20.40.202 (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2) Which was his second name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.20.40.202 (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph, presuming we're talking about the same person - John Geoghan. See signature in this letter. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3) Or his mother´s name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.20.40.202 (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad things happens when you make multiple sections with the same name. I fix. StuRat (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Bad things happen when you promise a Republican your vote in a voodoo hand raising ceremony and then don't. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]