Humanities desk | ||
---|---|---|
< January 11 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 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. |
Is there any difference between the Modern Judaism's founding legal and ethical religious texts and the Old Testament of the Bible? Do they consist the same stories? 174.114.236.41 ( talk) 01:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
To the OP: yes, there's a massive difference. For one, the Bible does not contain all of the traditional stories - many are in the Midrash and texts derived from it. Orthodox Judaism would view a large proportion of those Midrashic stories as original and as old as the Bible. (Eg the Bible tells us virtually nothing of Abraham's life before he's an old man. The Midrash does.)
As you're also interested in "legal texts", you also notably omit the Oral Torah, that traditional Judaism says was given to the Jews at Mount Sinai. A Jewish teacher might say - on Mt Sinai, Moses was handed the two tablets of stone. That took maybe 2 minutes. So what do you think he was doing for the remaining 40 days and nights? He was studying the Oral law. -- Dweller ( talk) 07:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am asking if the stories of all the Jewish books differs from the Biblical Old Testament. Is there any missing information or story in either one? 174.114.236.41 ( talk) 00:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
On what grounds can the federal (United States) government criminalize marijuana (medical or not), if a state chooses to have it legalized/decriminalized? I don't understand where Feds have the delegated power to overrule states (in this case about Marijuana), if the power is not assigned to them in the first place (Constitution). Isn't that the point of the tenth amendment? If federal legislators (US Congress), chooses to pass any law, how can the State exercise its own sovereignty?
My question is essentially, how can the 10th amendment and the supremacy clause coexist? The mandate to outlaw marijuana is not in the US Constitution.
So if Congress passes a law that is clearly tyrannical, unfair, and unjust, by what means can State(s) challenge the law? Wouldn't all states be bound to following it by the code of the supremacy clause? One would obviously say the State could merely choose not to follow the statute imposed, but this led to the Civil War. And speaking of which, wasn't the Civil War an infraction of the 10th amendment by the Union (Lincoln)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxefremov ( talk • contribs) 01:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
What could be tyrrannical about wanting to rid the world of filthy drugs ? Some claim these things expand their mind, forgetting that if anything, it controls them even more than any government, repressive, or otherwise. I guess suggesting the US get rid of its federal system is a big no no. In principle, if your Founding Fathers gave you laws, which your federal government claims to live by, they must obey them. I wasn't aware though that individual states could legalise Marijuana. I hope each individual state legislature sees sense. One drug leads to another, and the little spider monkey of cannibis grows into the King Kong of Heroin. Just Say No. The Russian Christopher Lilly 12:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:SOAP. Thank you. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 23:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
That's fine. I agree about tobacco and alcohol, but as for Drew Carey, what about the ways he could hurt others, not just himself ? And I don't just mean by his comedy. A number - may be not all - who take drugs can do others harm also - this has been seen in New Zealand with a P user who cut off a lady's arm with a Samurai sword after shooting dead a man she knew, while high. He later died in prison, but no one here will ever forget his crazed eyes. Weird. This is my concern, whether people think they are harming themselves or not - it is true they can harm others. I realise there were urban legends spread in the 1960s against LSD, where it was claimed a group of stoners went blind because the drug caused them to keep staring at the sun. Sounds more like a plot Cheech and Chong might have rejected for one of their films. Anyway, I hope we do not leagalise any of that in NZ. People say the drug problems are out of control, but it still won't stop the pro weed lobby from making it worse, even if they think they are doing good. As for pain relief ? I don't know. The Russian Christopher Lilly 14:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is it that no air conditioning manufacturer sell air conditioning unit that the owener can turn on from the internet? 139.130.1.226 ( talk) 02:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Sounds like an opportunity to me. Maxefremov ( talk) 02:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know 10-20 of the most popular Songs during the Harlem renaissance and there names??? thanks everyone :) !!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband ( talk • contribs)
Dear folks: Its almost 3 in the morning and for 3 hours have been reading page after page and link after link on the Weather underground, Only because I was looking for info on the Weather ie rain, snow, clouds and things like that. I got caught up in the 60's 70's and 80's holy cow! I'm trying to find out how or what the link is between a hostile radical orginization (fighting the Gov't) called the Weatherunderground turned into a Weather station called the Weatherunderground ? 72.74.212.20 ( talk) 07:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The History Channel aired this presentation on the eighth anniversary of 9/11. It was called, "Hotel Ground Zero." Some surviving guests who were staying at the Marriott World Trade Center Hotel told their stories about what happened on that fateful morning. Those surviving guests were in a reinforced section of the hotel when the towers collapsed. (That particular section was reinforced after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The bomb went off beneath the hotel ballroom.) Shouldn't any of this be mentioned in the article about Marriott International? 24.90.204.234 ( talk) 08:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
What proportion of the Vatican Library, the Vatican Secret Archives, and similar libraries have been catalogued in modern times? Could there be for example classic works of literature waiting to be discovered? 89.242.107.166 ( talk) 13:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd love to think so, ever since the Alexandrian Library was destroyed so long ago. Shame us normal people aren't allowed in, but even a Protestant like me would be interested to find out. Scandals. Murders. Conspiracies. And after them, all the real interesting stuff, like the proof to his theorem that Fermat couldn't fit on his margin. I suspect they have done a bit. I saw the documentary that Brit did on the Sistine Chapel and its link to Waco. He got in there, and also got to read rare books, but whether any in the Vatican for his research I know not. Shame for them to keep all that stuff to themselves, especially if they got it from someone else. The Russian Christopher Lilly 13:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I understand that the Vatican library etc is not the neat indexed affair that people seem to be assuming/guessing - I recall news items over the years of various things being re-discovered in it, for example http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=136& The manuscript referred to would have been placed in the library centuries ago. 89.242.107.166 ( talk) 17:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Dan Brown ? Me ? I wouldn't read that hack ! I only watch documentaries. Sure I saw one on the da Vinci code, and such, but that is it. I apologise since I was ignorant of who could get into the Vatican to read their stuff. I meant what I said about hoping they find a lost treasure. I was simply overawed by the fact they could have goodness knows what in there. So, whoever can get in to study, I trust there is some sort of guide as to what is available. Some of that stuff must be rare, ancient and invaluable. The Russian Christopher Lilly 13:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I saw a documentary not that long ago on the Nuremburg executions. The Wikipedia article says John C. Woods may have " accidentally " botched the killings, but the documentary says he did it on purpose. Now although I support what they did, considering these men butchered millions, such that not killing them would seem to devalue those lives they took, I do not approve of making them suffer. I see no point in that. They are going to die, that is enough. But what then is the truth, and why does the wiki article differ from what was claimed on TV ? The Russian Christopher Lilly 13:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry - I didn't get their source. I believe the film was on the History Channel. I understand others believe they should suffer as those they killed suffered. But then maybe that is immaterial, if one believes in Hell, where there is unimginable suffering. What would Jesus do ? I cannot even see Him condoning the suffering, because it is still a cruelty on the part of the hangman. Mr. Wood did say, " Did you see what I did to those Nazis ?" or such like. Obviously he executed them, but it can be taken that he means he deliberately botched the killings in the sense that " Did you see how I made those SOBs suffer ?" I can understand his reason, if he did it deliberately, since he may have had dozens of soldier buddies die at their hands. But then Jack Ketch, who botched the Duke of Monmouth's execution was known for his cruelty. He is more condemned probably because a lot of those he despatched were innocent to some extent. In the end justice was done at Nuremberg, but then, so should it have been done to war criminals on both sides. The Russian Christopher Lilly 13:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
what is solar system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.205.202 ( talk) 15:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
To cut a long story short: A friend and I were persuaded by our teacher to sign up to an anti-discrimination project at our school. The aim is to create a project that will put the participants into the position of the person or group of people being discriminated and thus help them understand the problems this person/group of people have to deal with. My friend landed himself 'Discrimination of the pysically handicapped' so he is going to have the participants tie one hand behind their back, and then get them to open bottles etc with only one hand. I was wondering if anyone had any ideas as to something I could do to demonstrate a similar point, only in relation to my project 'Discrimination of Homosexuals'. I'd really like to help make a difference, but I can't see how I could make my project as memorable as that of my friend. I'd be grateful for any hints or tips anyone could give me. Thanks in advance! ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.227.83.88 ( talk) 15:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Pedantic it may be, but you should know that "discrimination of" any group is a positive thing, while "discrimination against" is negative. You mean the latter.
The former means the ability to be discriminatory, ie deciding between right and wrong, good and bad, tasteful and tasteless etc. Discrimination of Homosexuals when it comes to fashion is, according to the stereotype presented by Queer Eye for the Straight Guy outstanding, and something Heterosexual men in particular can learn from.
These quirks of language are important, even if they seem irritating. -- Dweller ( talk) 16:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The original poster might try reading The Third Wave to see if any ideas can develop from that. 67.51.38.51 ( talk) 16:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I am crazy or there was an article of "List of term for gay in other languages". But I can't find it!, any help appreciated. -- 190.50.90.243 ( talk) 17:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Since my high school principal said "John Kufuor is the most outspoken person and there have been many concerns about John Kufuor's rule" is this because of his corruption he makes. A black people have said John Kufuor is devil, did john Kufuor's econmic plan concern people? Sorry I don't know that deep about politics. I'm still very young.-- 209.129.85.4 ( talk) 20:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Is it correct to say that French law allows the creation of public rights of way only by statute? Or the Code Civil rather. Does a Road require to have a public right of way over it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.189.57 ( talk) 23:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
No, there exists a body of traditional law called 'droit communal". If I own a piece of land, and for generations people have been crossing it, I can't just fence it off. Rhinoracer ( talk) 10:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Humanities desk | ||
---|---|---|
< January 11 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 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. |
Is there any difference between the Modern Judaism's founding legal and ethical religious texts and the Old Testament of the Bible? Do they consist the same stories? 174.114.236.41 ( talk) 01:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
To the OP: yes, there's a massive difference. For one, the Bible does not contain all of the traditional stories - many are in the Midrash and texts derived from it. Orthodox Judaism would view a large proportion of those Midrashic stories as original and as old as the Bible. (Eg the Bible tells us virtually nothing of Abraham's life before he's an old man. The Midrash does.)
As you're also interested in "legal texts", you also notably omit the Oral Torah, that traditional Judaism says was given to the Jews at Mount Sinai. A Jewish teacher might say - on Mt Sinai, Moses was handed the two tablets of stone. That took maybe 2 minutes. So what do you think he was doing for the remaining 40 days and nights? He was studying the Oral law. -- Dweller ( talk) 07:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am asking if the stories of all the Jewish books differs from the Biblical Old Testament. Is there any missing information or story in either one? 174.114.236.41 ( talk) 00:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
On what grounds can the federal (United States) government criminalize marijuana (medical or not), if a state chooses to have it legalized/decriminalized? I don't understand where Feds have the delegated power to overrule states (in this case about Marijuana), if the power is not assigned to them in the first place (Constitution). Isn't that the point of the tenth amendment? If federal legislators (US Congress), chooses to pass any law, how can the State exercise its own sovereignty?
My question is essentially, how can the 10th amendment and the supremacy clause coexist? The mandate to outlaw marijuana is not in the US Constitution.
So if Congress passes a law that is clearly tyrannical, unfair, and unjust, by what means can State(s) challenge the law? Wouldn't all states be bound to following it by the code of the supremacy clause? One would obviously say the State could merely choose not to follow the statute imposed, but this led to the Civil War. And speaking of which, wasn't the Civil War an infraction of the 10th amendment by the Union (Lincoln)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxefremov ( talk • contribs) 01:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
What could be tyrrannical about wanting to rid the world of filthy drugs ? Some claim these things expand their mind, forgetting that if anything, it controls them even more than any government, repressive, or otherwise. I guess suggesting the US get rid of its federal system is a big no no. In principle, if your Founding Fathers gave you laws, which your federal government claims to live by, they must obey them. I wasn't aware though that individual states could legalise Marijuana. I hope each individual state legislature sees sense. One drug leads to another, and the little spider monkey of cannibis grows into the King Kong of Heroin. Just Say No. The Russian Christopher Lilly 12:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:SOAP. Thank you. Cuddlyable3 ( talk) 23:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
That's fine. I agree about tobacco and alcohol, but as for Drew Carey, what about the ways he could hurt others, not just himself ? And I don't just mean by his comedy. A number - may be not all - who take drugs can do others harm also - this has been seen in New Zealand with a P user who cut off a lady's arm with a Samurai sword after shooting dead a man she knew, while high. He later died in prison, but no one here will ever forget his crazed eyes. Weird. This is my concern, whether people think they are harming themselves or not - it is true they can harm others. I realise there were urban legends spread in the 1960s against LSD, where it was claimed a group of stoners went blind because the drug caused them to keep staring at the sun. Sounds more like a plot Cheech and Chong might have rejected for one of their films. Anyway, I hope we do not leagalise any of that in NZ. People say the drug problems are out of control, but it still won't stop the pro weed lobby from making it worse, even if they think they are doing good. As for pain relief ? I don't know. The Russian Christopher Lilly 14:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Why is it that no air conditioning manufacturer sell air conditioning unit that the owener can turn on from the internet? 139.130.1.226 ( talk) 02:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Sounds like an opportunity to me. Maxefremov ( talk) 02:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know 10-20 of the most popular Songs during the Harlem renaissance and there names??? thanks everyone :) !!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband ( talk • contribs)
Dear folks: Its almost 3 in the morning and for 3 hours have been reading page after page and link after link on the Weather underground, Only because I was looking for info on the Weather ie rain, snow, clouds and things like that. I got caught up in the 60's 70's and 80's holy cow! I'm trying to find out how or what the link is between a hostile radical orginization (fighting the Gov't) called the Weatherunderground turned into a Weather station called the Weatherunderground ? 72.74.212.20 ( talk) 07:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The History Channel aired this presentation on the eighth anniversary of 9/11. It was called, "Hotel Ground Zero." Some surviving guests who were staying at the Marriott World Trade Center Hotel told their stories about what happened on that fateful morning. Those surviving guests were in a reinforced section of the hotel when the towers collapsed. (That particular section was reinforced after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The bomb went off beneath the hotel ballroom.) Shouldn't any of this be mentioned in the article about Marriott International? 24.90.204.234 ( talk) 08:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
What proportion of the Vatican Library, the Vatican Secret Archives, and similar libraries have been catalogued in modern times? Could there be for example classic works of literature waiting to be discovered? 89.242.107.166 ( talk) 13:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd love to think so, ever since the Alexandrian Library was destroyed so long ago. Shame us normal people aren't allowed in, but even a Protestant like me would be interested to find out. Scandals. Murders. Conspiracies. And after them, all the real interesting stuff, like the proof to his theorem that Fermat couldn't fit on his margin. I suspect they have done a bit. I saw the documentary that Brit did on the Sistine Chapel and its link to Waco. He got in there, and also got to read rare books, but whether any in the Vatican for his research I know not. Shame for them to keep all that stuff to themselves, especially if they got it from someone else. The Russian Christopher Lilly 13:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I understand that the Vatican library etc is not the neat indexed affair that people seem to be assuming/guessing - I recall news items over the years of various things being re-discovered in it, for example http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=136& The manuscript referred to would have been placed in the library centuries ago. 89.242.107.166 ( talk) 17:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Dan Brown ? Me ? I wouldn't read that hack ! I only watch documentaries. Sure I saw one on the da Vinci code, and such, but that is it. I apologise since I was ignorant of who could get into the Vatican to read their stuff. I meant what I said about hoping they find a lost treasure. I was simply overawed by the fact they could have goodness knows what in there. So, whoever can get in to study, I trust there is some sort of guide as to what is available. Some of that stuff must be rare, ancient and invaluable. The Russian Christopher Lilly 13:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I saw a documentary not that long ago on the Nuremburg executions. The Wikipedia article says John C. Woods may have " accidentally " botched the killings, but the documentary says he did it on purpose. Now although I support what they did, considering these men butchered millions, such that not killing them would seem to devalue those lives they took, I do not approve of making them suffer. I see no point in that. They are going to die, that is enough. But what then is the truth, and why does the wiki article differ from what was claimed on TV ? The Russian Christopher Lilly 13:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry - I didn't get their source. I believe the film was on the History Channel. I understand others believe they should suffer as those they killed suffered. But then maybe that is immaterial, if one believes in Hell, where there is unimginable suffering. What would Jesus do ? I cannot even see Him condoning the suffering, because it is still a cruelty on the part of the hangman. Mr. Wood did say, " Did you see what I did to those Nazis ?" or such like. Obviously he executed them, but it can be taken that he means he deliberately botched the killings in the sense that " Did you see how I made those SOBs suffer ?" I can understand his reason, if he did it deliberately, since he may have had dozens of soldier buddies die at their hands. But then Jack Ketch, who botched the Duke of Monmouth's execution was known for his cruelty. He is more condemned probably because a lot of those he despatched were innocent to some extent. In the end justice was done at Nuremberg, but then, so should it have been done to war criminals on both sides. The Russian Christopher Lilly 13:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
what is solar system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.205.202 ( talk) 15:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
To cut a long story short: A friend and I were persuaded by our teacher to sign up to an anti-discrimination project at our school. The aim is to create a project that will put the participants into the position of the person or group of people being discriminated and thus help them understand the problems this person/group of people have to deal with. My friend landed himself 'Discrimination of the pysically handicapped' so he is going to have the participants tie one hand behind their back, and then get them to open bottles etc with only one hand. I was wondering if anyone had any ideas as to something I could do to demonstrate a similar point, only in relation to my project 'Discrimination of Homosexuals'. I'd really like to help make a difference, but I can't see how I could make my project as memorable as that of my friend. I'd be grateful for any hints or tips anyone could give me. Thanks in advance! ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.227.83.88 ( talk) 15:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Pedantic it may be, but you should know that "discrimination of" any group is a positive thing, while "discrimination against" is negative. You mean the latter.
The former means the ability to be discriminatory, ie deciding between right and wrong, good and bad, tasteful and tasteless etc. Discrimination of Homosexuals when it comes to fashion is, according to the stereotype presented by Queer Eye for the Straight Guy outstanding, and something Heterosexual men in particular can learn from.
These quirks of language are important, even if they seem irritating. -- Dweller ( talk) 16:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The original poster might try reading The Third Wave to see if any ideas can develop from that. 67.51.38.51 ( talk) 16:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I am crazy or there was an article of "List of term for gay in other languages". But I can't find it!, any help appreciated. -- 190.50.90.243 ( talk) 17:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Since my high school principal said "John Kufuor is the most outspoken person and there have been many concerns about John Kufuor's rule" is this because of his corruption he makes. A black people have said John Kufuor is devil, did john Kufuor's econmic plan concern people? Sorry I don't know that deep about politics. I'm still very young.-- 209.129.85.4 ( talk) 20:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Is it correct to say that French law allows the creation of public rights of way only by statute? Or the Code Civil rather. Does a Road require to have a public right of way over it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.189.57 ( talk) 23:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
No, there exists a body of traditional law called 'droit communal". If I own a piece of land, and for generations people have been crossing it, I can't just fence it off. Rhinoracer ( talk) 10:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)