Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 July 27

= July 27 =

Christian denominations which do not receive the Eucharist
Are there Christian groups which do not practice receiving Communion? If so, what are their reasons for doing so? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Quakers do not recognize any formal sacraments. According to our article Sacrament, they believe "that all activities should be considered holy", and consider it inappropriate to single out any particular activity as being "more sacred" than another.  See this article from a Quaker meeting-house in Philadelphia. Tevildo (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Jehovah's Witnesses don't receive it either, from what I understand. Apparently, they think themselves unworthy, and instead pass it from person to person. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * According to our Eucharist article, Jehovah's Witnesses observe an annual feast of "The Memorial" on a date corresponding to Passover. Tevildo (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Jehovah's Witnesses have published "The Eucharist—The Facts Behind the Ritual" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2008249.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Are Jehovah's Witnesses even considered "Christian?" Edison (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That depends entirely on who you ask. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course they are Christians. See No True Scotsman to understand why... -- Jayron  32  01:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The requirements for being rightfully called a 'Christian', varies from one denomination to the next. So, it does depend on who you ask. There is no absolute right or wrong answer. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus can consider themselves Christian. And the verbiage in the JW link provided by Wavelength a little ways up certainly sounds like "Christian talk" to me. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The different requirements stems from the disagreement over the exact teachings of Jesus. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly. The "requirements" established by any particular denomination for itself, carry no weight with other denominations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If anyone who reveres Jesus is a "Christian", then JW's are Christian (but so are Muslims and Bahais). If you only include "mainstream" Christianity which is "orthodox" according to traditional definitions (which means accepting the decrees of all recognized church councils from the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. to the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D., among other things), then they're not Christian.  There's no one definition of "Christian" which will satisfy all people, but things aren't quite as squishily subjective as you seemed to imply (at least when applying definitions to church bodies with formally-defined doctrines)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * So how do we get the numbers for Christianity? HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the statement "2.2 billion adherents"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep. It's nonsense to start with. And if we removed every group another "Christian" says aren't proper Christians, we have a much smaller number. HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Those numbers come from adding up each denomination's claims as to the number of adherents within their sect. Various sources will break that number down, and one thing that's kind of amazing after all these centuries is that Catholicism still claims about half of that 2+ billion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a bit like the number of extrasolar planets dilemma. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It depends whether you're looking from the inside or the outside. If you're a Christian, you know what you believe the true meaning of Christianity is, and anyone who doesn't conform to that can't really be Christian. If I was a Christian I'd probably be very keen to distance myself from the Westboro Baptists, for example. But if you're not a Christian, as I'm not, then which ones are right and which ones aren't isn't an issue, so every kind of religion that claims to be Christian is Christian. I just note that there are differences between them and that some of them are weirder than others. Muslims and Baha'is aren't Christian, because they don't claim to be (and as far as I know don't consider Jesus to the the Christ or Messiah, which I would have thought is the diagnostic of Christianity). --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There's an exception to your view about who Christians think is a Christian. For the total numbers in the Christianity article, they're happy to claim anyone who has ever been near a church. I find it pretty hypocritical. HiLo48 (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Who does "they" in your sentence refer to?? Most such estimates of world religiously-affiliated populations are made by sociologists or demographers working with rough-and-ready definitions of major religions, not by Christians anxious to inflate the Christian population... AnonMoos (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The absence of ego that Christians (and other religions) are enjoined to live by would mean that, whatever Christian denomination you may belong to, you would accept that those who adhere to other denominations are not "wrong" just because their interpretation of the Scriptures differs from your own. It's supposed to be about you living your life in accordance with the rules as you understand them; not about judging others for daring to live by a different understanding of the rules.  Nowhere in the New Testament does it talk about people needing to join any particular version of Christianity.  Now, some people use, or abuse, a religion to give some legitimacy to their bigoted attitudes; but there are those who truly and sincerely believe that such attitudes are divinely inspired, and others can no more say they are "wrong" than vice-versa.  I'm sure the Westboro Baptists contain examples of both.  That isn't to say that anyone should be allowed to practise illegal discrimination or vilification.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  09:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Contrasting ideas cannot be right simultaneously, as much as a single coin cannot simultaneously land on heads and tails. Accordingly, if one promotes one idea to be correct, the other must inherently be wrong. The Bible does mention the existence of a particular "version of Christianity" - the Nicolaitans. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Err - this is the fallacy of false dilemma. One can only make this sort of statement if the ideas in question are genuine logical contraries, which doesn't apply to most real-life statements, and certainly doesn't apply to the views of Jehovah's Witnesses and mainstream Chalcedonian Christianity.  Many Christians, of course, don't consider JW's (or Mormons, or Roman Catholics, etc etc ad nauseam) to be "real" Christians, but nobody can validly make this assertion on purely logical grounds, as you appear to be.  Apologies if I've misrepresented your position. Tevildo (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Tevildo --Things are simply not as subjective and indeterminately ultra-relativistic as you seem to imply. JW-ism and Mormonism factually and objectively fall outside the traditional definitions of "mainstream"/"orthodox" Christianity, which means accepting the decrees of all recognized church councils from the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. to the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D., among other things. Groups which were not already in existence in 451 A.D. (such as the Coptic and Armenian churches were), but instead were founded in the 19th or 20th centuries with doctrines strongly divergent from traditional "orthodoxy", are likely to be rejected as Christian by mainstream Christians.  Calling Catholicism not true Christianity has nothing to do with any of this, but instead goes back to the bitterness of reformation/counter-reformation disputes.  Most of the people vocally maintaining that position nowadays are either semi-weirdos (such as Jack Chick) or semi-extremists on the sharp edge of sectarian disputes (such as Ian Paisley), or are none too traditionally orthodox/mainstream themselves... AnonMoos (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are, because I say so! So nyah!  My main intention was to highlight the logical fallacy in Plasmic's statement, rather than to address the issue "Are JW's real Christians?"  I agree that their beliefs do not coincide with those decided on at Chalcedon, and that this takes them outside "traditional mainstream" Christianity.  I would take issue with the view that this takes them outside Christianity altogether, or that there is an objective test for "Christianity" that they fail.  Why stop at Chalcedon?  We can go all the way to Vatican II and allow the Pope to make the decision - a view to which many of my Roman Catholic friends would subscribe.  However, although the Pope has the authority to make such rulings in the context of Catholicism, I would argue that no individual or organization is in a position to do the same for Christianity as a whole, and, if a particular group of people consider themselves Christian, there isn't anyone that should (legitimately) prevent them from so doing.  Tevildo (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Baptists are among the largest denominations in America. They were started in the 1600s, but they definitely qualify as part of "mainstream", at least in America. They are quick to claim that Mormonism is not "true" Christianity. But they don't much care for Catholicism either. Christianity is about believing in the teachings of Jesus, not about whatever those characters decided at the First Council of Nicaea. The "fundamentals" of "true" Christianity are faith, hope and love. And the core belief was stated by the apostle Simon/Peter: "You are the Christ, the son of God." Anyone who adheres to those biblical tenets can call themselves Christian, whether the First Council of Nicaea or "mainstream" Christians would approve or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, traditionally (not including the Southern Baptist Convention in recent decades) the Baptists have placed greater emphasis on sola scriptura and "the priesthood of all believers" than on formal credal statements. However, completely discarding such things means unmooring from Christian history and traditions.  Some splinter-of-splinter-of-splinter Baptist mini-subgroups have ended up in very strange places, which could perhaps be taken as an argument for not indiscriminately jettisoning all traditions overboard... AnonMoos (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Tevildo, please note that I have not assumed a position in this discussion. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The point being that there are really no human-invented "requirements" restricting who can consider themselves Christian and who can't. There is no world governing body of Christianity. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Then we are in agreement, since that is what I have been saying. Plasmic Physics (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * However, there are a number of criteria (such as ... 451 A.D. etc. etc.) which can be used to evaluate groups fairly objectively to see how closely their doctrines approach towards traditionally-defined "mainstream" or "orthodox" Christianity. There's no one definition of the word "Christian" which will satisfy everyone, but in most cases it's not too hard to distinguish groups which would be considered more core or mainstream according to traditional definitions from more peripheral or fringe groups. AnonMoos (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Traditional vs. non-traditional... a lot of those "non-traditional" denominations included a communion ritual at various times. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Edison, Jehovah's Witnesses have answered your question at http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/are-jehovahs-witnesses-christians/.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * They SAY they are Christians. Any cult can say that. But in the link they say "However, in a number of ways, we are different from other religious groups that are called Christian." If you dig a bit deeper, as in Scientology or many other cults, you learn some of the divergent and surprising views thair teachings actually include. They say that they are "different " from mainstream Christian groups in about every way,such that they are the only "true" Christians and all the other so-called Christians are not. This prevents tossing them into the same basket as other Christian denominations, by their own declaration.  Their beliefs include  denying that Jesus died on a cross (they are confident it was just a "stake"), and in stating that he was just the angel Michael, who had been created by God, put into a human body during the years Jesus lived, then afterwards becoming the angel Michael again, with no resurrection. So: no divinity for Jesus, no crucifixion, no resurrection. Edison (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Making stuff up that has no biblical basis is why some have labeled the Roman Catholic Church a "cult". Pretty freakin' big cult, though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Edison, according to their article "The Resurrection of Jesus—Did It Really Happen?" at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2013162?, Jehovah's Witnesses do believe that Jesus was resurrected.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 06:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Witnesses prevaricate and say "Sure, we believe in the resurrection" to lure people in and to sound mainstream, but a closer examination shows that they deny the "resurrection of the body" which is in the creeds of mainstream Christian denominations, and say that he just had a "spiritual resurrection" and his "spirit" went back to heaven. They say that when he appeared to his followers it was just a trick, wherein he temporarily assumed one physical body or another. See their publication ""Resurrection" which says ".. his resurrection was “in the spirit,” to life in heaven. (1Pe 3:18) Moreover, he was raised to a higher form of life and a higher position than that which he had held in the heavens prior to coming to earth. He was granted immortality and incorruption, which no creature in the flesh can have, and was made “higher than the heavens,” second only to Jehovah God in the universe." and "..for 40 days after his resurrection Jesus appeared to his disciples on different occasions in various fleshly bodies, just as angels had appeared to men of ancient times. Like those angels, he had the power to construct and to disintegrate those fleshly bodies at will, for the purpose of proving visibly that he had been resurrected." Edison (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Mormon Church at Kealia, Hawaii
Is there a Mormon Church at Kealia, Hawaii? There was one in 1895 and 1906.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Latter-Day Saints Churches located in and around Kealia, Hawaii 96751  —E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... this one is very close, (3.3 miles, walking) but doesn't show up on that list:  4561 Ohia St, Kapa‘a, HI 96746   71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The source seems to indicate it was in Kealia, not in the neighboring towns. It might no longer exist.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Kealia is an unincorporated community, containing about 10 buildings; [I can't find where I read that] so on maps it shows up as a single location (most likely the post office). And, the coordinates that I used were from the Wikipedia article (Kealia, Hawaii) -and Google maps put that location out in the middle of nowhere in a farm field.  ~Anyway, ... 71.20.250.51 (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Piéton a tributary of the Sambre
Several of the detailed histories of the Waterloo Campaign written in the 1900s mention the Piéton a tributary of the Sambre (eg here). It does not appear that any Wikipedia language has an article on it. There is a village in the vicinity called fr:Gouy-lez-Piéton, and it is possible that it is now a feeder steam into the Brussels Charleroi Canal.

The trouble is that in looking for reliable sources for Piéton is more difficult than for some words because "piéton" apparently means "pedestrian" in French, so lots of false positives appear in searches. I am hoping someone who's French is better than mine can find out what has happened to the river and write a small stub on it (in either French or English). If it is placed on French Wikipedia then I will translate it. If there is a better place to post this request please let me know. -- PBS (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If you don't have any luck here, you might try over at WikiProject European history, or  WikiProject France.   —71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the idea I have placed a link to here on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France page. -- PBS (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hope this helps: http://www.pieton.eu/le-ruisseau-le-pieton.html and http://environnement.wallonie.be/contrat_riviere/contriv/sambre.htm Akseli9 (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Salut PBS, you could have a look in french at fr:Piéton (ruisseau) and in dutch at nl:Piéton (rivier). Alvar ☮ 08:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

✅ Thanks to all who contributed. The article now exists Piéton and I was able to use the information to add a list of tributaries to the Sambre article. -- PBS (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)