Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 February 9

= February 9 =

Title for the article Sage (sophos)
I just encountered the article Sage (sophos). Wouldn't Sage (philosophy) be a more obvious title? The current title assumes too much background knowledge, I think. If you don't know what a "sophos" is supposed to be, it's rather mystifying. Article titles should be as self-explanatory as possible and not essentially require that you already know the subject the article is about. "Sage" is a more commonly known and used word, so it's like an obscurum per obscurius explanation. Is there any reason not to use an alternative title like the one I suggested? (Feel free to move the article on your own if you agree with me and can't see any drawback or possible objection. I just wanted to solicit other opinions in case I am overlooking some relevant point.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not a major problem. Anyone who knows the subject sufficiently would have no trouble finding it. Now that I think about it, even those in the know might have trouble guessing what to type. Ignoramuses (like me) would only stumble upon it in Sage (disambiguation), which has a clear enough description. However, I wouldn't object to a page move. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note also Sophos, and Sophos_(disambiguation). I think the real problem here is that _(sophos) seems to only occur for that sage article. By analogy common suffixes such as _(medicine), _(video game) and _(computer science), etc. occur for dozens of articles each. (Is there a name for that parenthetical classification part of an article title?)
 * The candidate _(philosophy) also gets plenty of use. I'd outright support a move to Sage_(philosophy). I'd do it myself but I'm not quite sure how :) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Moved it per arguments. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That parenthetical classification part of an article title – I call it a disambiguator. — Kpalion(talk) 13:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Can Catholics become re-baptized after showing a de-baptismal certificate?
If a Catholic becomes successful at removing himself from the parish register, and after 25 or years or so, can he choose to become re-baptized? 140.254.226.195 (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * According to this source, the Catholic Church feels that it is impossible to become "de-baptized". Also, after having grown up Catholic, I can't recall my parents ever putting their name in a register.  There was a parish phone directory that you could submit your name/address/number to but that was entirely voluntary and not a requirement for attendance.  Dismas |(talk) 17:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So, what's the point of a de-baptismal ceremony if the church actually doesn't keep track of attendants? 140.254.226.195 (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. But that's a separate thing from attendance.  If you're baptized in one Catholic church and then go on to attend another, you don't have to let either the old or the new church know.  When you go up to receive the eucharist, they assume that you've had your baptism and first communion.  I don't see why they'd need your name and address unless they send out flyers and donation requests for needy orphans or such.  But that's a function of their charity, not strictly part of the religion.  Dismas |(talk) 17:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * De-Baptism is not a Catholic concept, it's a New Atheist concept that religiously rejects religion apparently without understanding the irony. It's kind of like asking if the Catholic church will issue a de-circumcision certificate for Jews who convert, and if Jews will issue re-circumcise those converts should they decide to return to Judaism.  De-Baptism certificates are for people who want to claim to be atheists, but don't get that that means that ceremonies like De-Baptism are at least as worthless as baptism. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Presumably the people who participate in "de-baptism" rituals do it for fun, or at worst to gain acceptance in some social group. I don't know how you can possibly imagine that there's some irony that they fail to see. Ritual ceremonies are not intrinsically religious any more than singing is intrinsically religious. -- BenRG (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Was planning to say the same thing. As far as I can tell, debaptism is commonly more tongue in cheek than anything. It's way some atheists mock the concept of baptism. The de-baptism certificate, obviously connected with the baptism certificate and shared a similar goal as the debaptism. This isn't to say it can't have a serious intent as well. Just as some may choose to defect from the Catholic church when it was possible (as below), some may choose ceremonial method of celebrating and recognising their rejecting of Christianity and the baptism which was probably performed without their consent. Whether because of their rejection of what the church represents or what baptism is claimed to represent or simple rejection of that which they consider was basically forced on them or whatever, there's surely nothing unusual or contradictory with a person wanting to do so. Remembering that from the OPs history we can be fairly sure they've never been baptised, I'm fairly sure most people who chose to be debaptised aren't as confused as the OP. They don't think it's something that the church will recognise. And just as an atheist may still have a wedding or funeral ceremony, there's nothing contradictory with atheists doing ceremonial or ritualistic stuff if it's solely intended to convey something to the world we live in (rather than intended to also represent something in the spiritual sense). Don't get me wrong, despite being a baptised and confirmed Catholic who's now agnostic or atheist, debaptism is not something I'd bother with, but I also don't think there's anything that weird that some may choose to do so. A waste of time may be, but we all waste time on different things. Now perhaps if someone get's debaptised despite never having been baptised (or worse, get's baptised just so they can be debaptised) I would agree it's a little odd. Nil Einne (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You'd have to ask someone who thinks they do something. The Baptismal register is a legal document in some countries. It plays a role in religious affairs in a Catholic context purely because, if you want to receive other Sacraments, there needs to be a record that you've been Baptised, and when you receive other Sacraments it will be recorded next to your name on the Baptismal register of wherever you were Baptised, purely so a) you can prove you received these Sacraments and b) you can prove you haven't been previously married in a Catholic church if you want to get married. This sort of thing is also why it is a legal document in some countries.


 * So, the Baptismal register is in no way a membership list, nor is it used to levy fees or anything. Many parishes in many countries separately maintain lists of members of their parish, where people register themselves and can unregister themselves: these are useful administratively, and in some countries are used for tax purposes. These are unrelated to the Baptismal register.


 * From a Catholic point of view, Baptism is a one-time thing that leaves a permanent mark on your soul, and nobody has the power to reverse or undo it at all, ever. You can no more be debaptised than you can be deborn. Having your name removed from the register of births will not change the fact that you were born, nor can you choose to be born at a different hospital later on. Having a special ceremony will not change this. A de-baptismal ceremony, from a Catholic point of view, is as meaningless as a rebaptism ceremony: nothing is considered to happen. 86.175.86.97 (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In addition to the points above, are you also getting confused with Formal act of defection from the Catholic Church (as also mentioned e.g. )? Firstly, the process was apparently abolished in 2009. Secondly, this didn't debaptise you, and as several people have pointed out above, this simply isn't possibly according to the Catholic church view. Thirdly, your name wasn't removed from the register, instead a note was simply made on your baptismal record that you did it. All 3 are mentioned in the article if there remains any confusion. As has been pointed out above and also noted in the additional sources, a baptismal record in the parish register is effectively a record of something that happened (whether or not you think it has any spiritual significance) so the concept of removing a name from it doesn't really make much sense. (I guess perhaps in exceptional circumstances like where something was added to it which shouldn't have been, although even then I expect more likely it'll just be noted.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * A quick Google search reveals that some atheists feel the need to undergo a "de-Baptism" ceremony to confirm that they renounce their former faith. One such American ceremony involves a hairdryer, which suggests that it's not entirely serious. Should you need such a thing, you can obtain a "DeBaptismal Certificate" from an organisation called the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Fear not though User:140, apparently the Catholic Church Says 'De-baptism' Is 'Impossible'. Some information about Catholic Parish Registers is here. Finally, you might like to look at the Parable of the Lost Sheep - I'm certain that they'll be pleased that you're back. Alansplodge (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that history repeats itself. Anabaptists got their name from "being baptized again". Like baptists and modern new atheists, they reject their infant baptisms and feel the need to conduct a new ceremony in their adult lives. At least they share that in common. 140.254.226.195 (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Adult baptism is not the wholesale rejection of the very concept of baptism, though, but the rejection of any baptism done without one's consent and awareness. That's at least internally consistent.  De-baptism is like denying vampires exist but hanging garlic to keep them away.  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly right. You can't become "un-baptised" by another church (or entity) to then be "re-baptised" by the Catholic Church. You can only be baptised once. A parish priest might hear your confession (in which you detail your attempt to turn away from the Lord) and thereafter allow you to reaffirm your faith or confirmation but I would think that would be an individual, holistic thing rather than anything canonical. Here are a couple of links (from my native Australia): and .  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This has got to be the best RD thread in the last year. μηδείς (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Baptism (especially as an adult) confirms one's belief in something. So "de-baptizing" would confirm one's non-belief in something. Reminds me of a long-ago Woody Allen line about his girlfriend being atheist and he being agnostic (or maybe vice-versa), and they broke up because they couldn't agree on what not to believe in. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't forget confirmation which serves the specific purpose of confirming one's belief in something, especially given a child can be baptised without his or her knowledge or belief (see also: Limbo). In essence (in the Catholic Church) baptism is designed to reveal a person to God and have them receive God's blessing. So being "un-baptised" would be an attempt to "hide" someone from God. The Church simply wouldn't acknowledge a person's ability to do that and so their original baptism stands. Whether they might go through a process of "re-confirmation" I imagine depends on the Priest in question and the parishioner.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 06:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As if God somehow wouldn't know they existed until they were baptized. But I see the distinction. Confirmation would be kind of like a Catholic version of Bar Mitzvah or Bat Mitzvah, i.e. it would be a decision to be made at age 12 or 13 or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Got it in one.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 08:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the most important result of baptism in the Catholic Church is cleansing the baby's soul from their original sin. Once you're freed from your original sin, there's no way you can get it back. Of course, you can commit all sorts of new sins throughout your life, but that doesn't make you debaptized, it just makes you a sinner. What's more, the Catholic Church recognizes baptisms made in some other denominations as long as some basic criteria are met (see Validity considerations by some churches). So even if you were baptized in the Orthodox, Anglican or Lutheran Church, and wish to convert to Catholicism, you're not going to rebaptized, because your original baptism is considered valid by the Catholic Church. — Kpalion(talk) 12:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually almost all good-faith baptisms are now accepted as valid.   The gist of it is, there's no need for re-baptism, being baptized by anyone in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is sufficient.     Which most Protestant groups do. Collect (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is tantamount to the Catholic Church saying that virtually any recognised Christian church will do, to ensure the child has a sporting chance of getting to Heaven rather than being consigned to Limbo for eternity. Doesn't this sort of water down their claimed status from "the one and only true Church" to "just another sect of Christianity"?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  16:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Not really, because the Catholic Church doesn't teach that Baptism guarantees Salvation (it believes you can turn away from God, and lose your Salvation). It just considers that Baptism is the minimum requirement to be a Christian, and is necessary to Salvation, and that it is therefore made easy for people to achieve. And I say this every time Confirmation comes up, but the Catholic view of Confirmation (sacrament) is in no way that it is about teenagers 'confirming' the decision made for them at Baptism: babies can be Confirmed, and adult converts are Confirmed even when they are being Baptised. The whole 'make the decision for yourself' angle is an Anglican thing, imported by some Catholics in Protestant-dominated countries. Confirmation is considered as permanent as Baptism, and so cannot be repeated. However, unlike Baptism, it is not consider by the Catholic Church to be possible for just anyone to Confirm: it takes a validly ordained minister. This means that adult converts who were Confirmed in a Church of England church, for example, will be Confirmed on entering the Catholic Church, because the Church won't consider that they actually have been Confirmed. 86.175.86.97 (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't say I entirely agree with that. If you look for example, it stated that the idea of confirmation being a sign of maturity actually originated in the middle ages, not with Protestants. Similarly  (albeit for Roman Rite only) and . This isn't to say it's accurate to claim that the confirmation is about confirming a decision made before someone was mature enough to make it in the Catholic church, but it's clear that in the Roman rite, confirmation is generally seen as a sign someone has hopefully maken a more concious decision to be part of the church and matured in their fath. And I don't see anything to suggest this is rejected by the church, provided it doesn't lead to the misleading belief someone who is confirmed is completely mature or automatically mature in their faith. I can say in Malaysia, which isn't a protestant country*, I'm fairly sure it wasn't uncommon for sunday school teachers to ask you if you're sure you want to be confirmed, I think it was ask of me and it was definitely asked of a sibling, the only one who said no. The fact that sometimes confirmation doesn't work like that in the Catholic church doesn't negate it often working like that (and the evidence suggests not just because of Anglican influence). Similarly, the fact that adults are confirmed straight away if anything reenforces this view since they're already making that concious decision. (*) I can't find statistics and am not that suprised since I don't think the government is very good at collecting info on Christian denomination. Christianity in Malaysia does give 3, and it may be Catholicism is in the minority among Christians. But I can't see I saw much sign of Anglican or other protestant influence in Malaysia Catholicism. Catholicism does have a fairly long history in Malaysia Roman Catholicism in Malaysia. Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Lucy Baines Johnson, daughter of President Lyndon Johnson, had been baptized in the Episcopal church, but got herself rebaptized when she became Roman Catholic, causing outrage among some Episcopals, since the Epispocal baptism should have been considered valid under Catholic doctrine. Episcopal bishop James Pike said repetition of a sacrament was "totally devoid of any sacramental effect and thus sacrilegious." A Catholic priest said  "A re-administration of the sacrament is to be done only when there is prudent doubt about the fact of a prior baptism or about its validity." The Episcopal and Roman Catholic churches, along with the Lutheran have similar views on baptism: It is an "indelible mark" despite any renunciation of the faith. Rebaptism is done by a church when they can't tell whether there was ever a baptism, such as for an anonymous foundling, or when do not view the initial baptism as valid, such as when it was done to an infant and a denomination practices only adult baptism, or when there is a difference between the two churches in acceptance of the Holy Trinity. See Rebaptism. Edison (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In the early church, confirmation was not practiced as a distinct rite. It was practiced as a part of the baptism ceremony. But when the baptism of infants became universal and the Bishop was not present to do the last rite of the baptismal ceremony, confirmation became a distinct sacrament on its own. Therefore, 86.175.86.97 is correct about the whole teenager thing. (The A to Z of Lutheranism). 140.254.70.33 (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Growing up in the Ruthenian Catholic church I was confirmed when I was baptised, as was my sister. We had to go to the classes for confirmation, but only the Latins deserved punching. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See above. It's perhaps worth remembering that as modern travel has advanced such that it's likely no problem in most places for the bishop to perform confirmations every year (or really more frequent if it was needed), confirmations have in fact tended to be performed at a later age, not at an earlier age. So it's fairly difficult to argue that in the modern Roman Catholic church, the age of confirmation has much to do with the requirement for a bishop, regardless of whether that may have been the initial reason they were seperated. Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The "rebaptism" of Luci Baines Johnson was, as Roman Catholic tradition requires in such circumstances, a conditional rebaptism that is used when there is suspicion that one of the two elements necessary for a valid baptism (running water, and a trinitarian formula) may have been lacking in the original baptism. In this conditional rebaptism, the traditional formula is replaced by "If you have not been baptized, I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."  The Episcopal Church was annoyed at the time because they assumed Luci's doubt about her baptism's validity was because it was Episcopalian, but if that were the doubt, the conditional baptism wouldn't have been performed. - Nunh-huh 11:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, my Grandfather had a conditional baptism on his deathbed as he had long practiced Catholicism, but had been born to a Lutheran father, and had no baptismal records. The priest made it quite clear this was a precaution, not an invalidation (or even a revalidation) of the first one, assuming it happened. In contrast to this, my mother recently confessed that she gave me an baptism of necessity in the kitchen sink, because we would be flying across country to hold my baptism, and news of jetliner crashes in the US was much more frequent at the time.  Here's the Catholic Encyclopedia entry in case it hasn't already been given. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's &mdash; really very sweet. Really, it is; no irony intended.
 * But it does seem to raise a logical question. If your mother thought that her sink baptism was effective, then what was the point of flying across the country?  Was it a hedging-her-bets sort of thing? --Trovatore (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I had the same thought. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  17:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks, I also thought it was very sweet. At the time, she feared what she had done was heretical.  But it's not if there's a good faith reason for it--and there's precedent from the middle ages when babies died all the time before they could get to a priest and midwives did it routinely--see the "foundling" section of the Cat. Enc. article I linked to above.  She should probably have gone to a local priest and had it done, but it would not have been in our language or custom.


 * All she really had to do in this case was tell the priest that she had already performed a lay baptism due to my health (I was born jaundiced and with some abdominal abnormalities) and the risk of the plane trip. He would then have simply have added "if you have not already been baptized" under his breath before he said "I baptize you in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost, amen."  That's the exact formula that was used with my grandfather who had almost certainly been baptized validly according to the Catholic Church, just not by the Catholic Church.


 * As for the reason for the trip, I was her first child, my aunt and uncle were to be Godparents, and the ceremony was to be held in the Ruthenian Catholic church where my parents had been married and, except now for us, near which my entire extended family lived. So it was a big to-do like a Greek wedding, not just a perfunctory dunking. :) μηδείς (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Jean Terrasson
Hello,

I am needing your help. I was reading the article Jean Terrasson and Sethos too and because of my university study I need more info about. I please you so so much, let me know and write me: in which books or documents you found all the data (date of birth, about his life etc...). I am working on my graduate work with Jean Terrasson and i am searching for ANY sources I can find ANYTHING in. Please help me to find out, which sources I should see.

So every book, evry document where i can read about Terrasson, please let me know.

Thank you, Wishing all the best Markéta Medková — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.31.69 (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You mean this Jean_Terrasson, right? Have you gotten the two books mentioned there (refs 2,3) from your library? You may need to use inter-library loan. Here's a few hits I found on google books . The second link gives a birth year and a brief bio. I have to tell you though, the best person to ask about this is your graduate adviser, so please talk to him/her and your local university library. You can probably even visit a real-life reference desk to get assistance from trained professionals who are paid to help you! SemanticMantis (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, i am trying to find any book, where i can read about Terrasson, everything i can use for my work. Really thank you for your help, i helped me as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.31.69 (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with WorldCat? It's an international library database, which shows libraries worldwide that own a particular book.  It has records for all three books that are cited in the article.  See, , and  for the first book (three different editions),  for the second, and  and  for the third.  Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, i never heard about it. Im just trying to understand the system, is that like I had to visit tady owner library or they would send me it online? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.31.69 (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You can search for things in WorldCat online, but to actually get a copy of most books, you'll have to use your university library. As I said above, it might be best to go through an inter-library loan program. Sometimes you can get someone to scan a book chapter or short paper and send it to you via email, but that is not always possible. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This paper, analyzing Séthos, may be useful to you. If you need more information on the book's influence, Not Out of Africa by Mary Lefkowitz and Napoleon's Sorcerers by Darius Alexander Spieth each spend several pages on it, judging by the Google Books previews. A. Parrot (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Great, really thank you for this paper, i aprecciate it. If anyone knows about more sources like this, will be welcomed to me. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.31.69 (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)