Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 March 28

= March 28 =

16th century Lutheranism
How did people practice Lutheranism in the 16th century under Martin Luther? Is it possible to revive traditional Lutheranism without the later movements (Pietism, Evangelicalism, Lutheran Orthodoxy, etc.)? 140.254.227.39 (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See Book of Concord, which is the foundational doctrine of Lutheranism. -- Jayron  32  18:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So... is that book considered sacred or holy or canonical in Lutheranism, along with the Bible? What bible version do Lutherans use? Do they still use Martin Luther's own bible? Are there other sacred texts besides the Bible and the Book of Concord? Do Lutherans base all their practices from those two books, or are some practices and scriptural interpretations based on the clergy? 164.107.189.137 (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I also want to ask: in what ways are the lives of monks and nuns under Lutheranism different from the lives of ordinary laypersons (outside of monastic life)? How can a person incorporate Lutheran thought in one's everyday life outside of monasticism? 164.107.189.137 (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Lutherans would not consider the writings of a mere man to rank alongside the Bible, as they would consider that to be sacreligious. It's just a book that outlines the thoughts of a man, one with whom they happens to agree with. I'm also not sure that there are any Lutheran monks or nuns. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Luther himself was a former monk who married a former nun. I've never heard of any Lutheran monastic order. Luther's Bible translation into German is still widely used in Germany, although it has been revised many times, and the current version differs considerably from Luther's final edition of 1546. Lutherans, following Luther himself, have always firmly held to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, meaning that the Bible is the only infallible standard for the Lutheran churches. That does not mean that they don't have confessions or Church regulations, but all these are subject to correction from the Bible. - Lindert (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, Lutherans do have monastic orders. 164.107.189.137 (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Source or example, please. 176.10.249.240 (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There are a few Protestant monastic orders, but they are so rare as to barely be noticeable compared to the much more prominent Catholic and Orthodox orders. See Christian monasticism for a description of Lutheran-based monastic orders.  It does bear noting that all such orders are less than 100 years old, and are extremely unusual in their rarity.  -- Jayron  32  02:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, only the Bible is considered Holy Scripture by Lutherans (and any other mainstream Christian sect, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox). The Book of Concord is an exposition of Lutheran Theology and Doctrine, not scripture.  -- Jayron  32  02:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Article 4 of the Norwegian Constitution: "The King shall at all times profess the Evangelical-Lutheran religion." 84.209.89.214 (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Chinese influence on Wicca?
Do Wiccan Neo-pagans draw influence from the ancient Chinese or something? According to this website, it seems to suggest so. How do Wiccans interpret concepts such as yin and yang? And how come the Chinese concepts of yin and yang make their way to a European witch-cult religion during pre-Christian times? Has anybody done research on true Wicca beliefs that were actually held by ancient/pre-modern witches? 140.254.226.237 (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wicca is a modern religion that, as our article explains, includes New Age influences, including from Eastern religions. Wicca has no direct relationship with pre-Christian European religions, though it draws on research about those religions. Our articles Druid and Celtic polytheism discuss research about ancient Celtic religion, though the latter article is flagged as substandard, and we have an article on Germanic paganism. Marco polo (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 140.254.226.237 -- If you try to find self-conscious "pre-modern witchcraft" with broad philosophical/religious views, then you enter into a strange historical netherworld of items like Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches, where it's hard to know what is fake, semi-fake, or actually authentic. Margaret Murray's Witch-cult hypothesis is fairly uniformly rejected by mainstream historians. Any Chinese influence on 20th-century syncretistic witchcraft is more likely to be mediated by the writings of Richard Wilhelm and his son than anything... AnonMoos (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Medical/Dental/Optical insurance in USA
In the United States, insurance for dental and optical services are separate from "normal" medical insurance. I never could understand why these are treated as completely separate fields. For total health insurance, a person would have to obtain separate policies for medical, dental and optical coverage. (Certainly a few plans cover all, but they are still treated as individual fields of coverage.) Is this the same in other countries? Why is health insurance segmented in this manner? --209.203.125.162 (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, in the United States, health insurance can be used for optical, dental, and general medical services. Here's a website that talks about health insurance covering eye care. So, your premise is false. Personal experience. 164.107.189.137 (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In my experience, optical tends to cover routine eye work, while serious eye issues (such as retinal detachments and cataracts) are typically included with the standard health insurance. It would take some research to discover if the separation of coverage is due to insurance laws or simply due to how the various companies want to do business. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To understand the situation, you have to look at insurance historically as something that at first covered catastrophic issues, and which people bought out of pocket, moving toward being a fringe benefit of employment at better companies, with expansion of coverage being driven by tax policy. Wages paid outright were taxed outright, but increases in medical coverage came with a tax write off for the employer.  Historically, things like routine optic and dental coverage weren't ideal on return, since employees tend to have either good teeth or not, bad eyes or not, while everyone breaks a bone or gets appendicitis. There's no matter of logic in this other than tax policies and competition between employers for employees and between unions and employers.  There was a huge controversy in NJ a few years back when Governor Christie negotiated to have teachers contribute 5% toward their insurance, which traditionally had come without any paycheck deduction. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Medeis touches on something which is relevant. Many people have fine vision (myself included) and don't require vision insurance for many many years.  If their eyes don't start going bad until their 50s, why would they want to pay for something through their 20s, 30s, and 40s if they likely won't need it.  And as Bugs said, catastrophic things like detached retinas are generally covered under general medical insurance.  So, if my (or anyone else) eyesight starts getting bad, then I can probably wait around a few months until I can renew my medical insurance and sign up for vision insurance at the same time.  Dismas |(talk) 00:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Despite the heading, the poster also asked about "other countries". In Ontario, Canada, the mandatory provincial health plan (OHIP) fully covers those "normal" medical expenses but typically does not cover dental, optical, physiotherapy, or prescription drug expenses, although there are exceptions (notably, prescription drugs are covered for people over 65).  In the professional jobs I've had, the employer typically provided a plan that covered most or all of these expenses.  Other provinces may differ, and probably do. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Economics problem
I am told that MC=1/4Q, what does it mean? -- 22:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It means that Q = 4e/c. Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Possibly something to do with Marginal cost. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is referring to the relationship between the marginal cost and the quantity being produced. What I don't understand is, how would a supply curve look like, if it had the formula (MC=1/4Q) to describe the marginal cost. I simply don't understand how to go about it. -- 23:40, 28 March 2014‎ 109.65.36.11
 * Do you already know what the graph of y = 0.25x looks like? 86.157.148.65 (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)