Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 August 8

= August 8 =

Is Christianity copied from Zoroastrianism
Many people believed that many christian theological elements are copied from the earlier religion zoroastrianism. (Zoroastrianism was created and popularized in roughly the same district as primitive christianity, except that it was much earlier.) For instance, the christian elements of heaven and hell (dualism) are direct reflections of the zoroastrian dualistic view of the world. Many other christian customs and belives are also believed to be copied from zoroastrainism. Yet, some people do believe that christianity is not copied from zoroastrianism. There has not been a consensus and there aren't much academic studies and literature out there discussing this problem. My question is, is christianity really copied from zoroastrianism? Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 03:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "Copied" is too strong a word. Christianity very obviously grew out of Judaism. Over several centuries the Jewish people had close links to the Persian Empire, so there was certainly some Zoroastrian influence on the development of Jewish though, particularly on the apocalyptic strand. Similarities of belief do not mean that one faith simply copied another: the may indicate some influence, or they may just be coincidental. After all, there is probably no religion anywhere which does not have some concept of the dichotomy of good and evil. Wymspen (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * See Christ myth theory and related articles. Blueboar (talk) 09:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The ancient Greeks had their concept of heaven and hell too, in the form of Elysium and Tartarus. They also had a neutral afterlife, in the Asphodel Meadows.  That seems to avoid the problem of 2 people, almost identical in their sins, with one being just a hair worse, ending up in heaven and hell respectively.  StuRat (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This article suggests influences of Zoroastrianism on Christianity. The author argues a stronger link than is generally acknowledged but is careful not to take it too far, stating "both Jewish  and  Christian  thought can still be distinctive and differ from the Iranian  tradition while  being  nonetheless influenced  by  it." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of philosophy to this question. No-Hellers would say that Hell isn't even a part of Christianity, but a pagan concept that seeped into interpretations of it.  Meanwhile, I remember reading that missionaries in North America would often explain their religion in reference to native concepts, but of course without actually endorsing the details of whatever those were.  So the relationship may be little more than "really good things might happen" and "really bad things might happen", with religion-specific modules saying when, and some shared words.  Or it might be deeper.  I don't know how you get to the point of saying yes or no, short of proving a direct historical connection. Wnt (talk) 11:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I thought No-Hellers would be people who aren't fans of Catch-22. StuRat (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Bear Market Alert
Where can I subscribe to receiving an alert when the S&P 500 or similarly broad stock market index has entered a bear market (wherein the supplier of the alert uses a professionaly respected definition for the term "bear market")?2607:FB90:76E:BBBC:6E1B:3467:553E:4485 (talk) 12:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Would that be so that you could pull your money out - thus helping to accelerate the Bear Market? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Symbols of Classical Deists
Deism

Were any symbols used by any historically significant classical deists to express their beliefs?

151.207.250.61 (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This may give you a start to your research. -- Jayron 32 15:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is hard to say, also, in that Deism is not, in itself, an organized set of religious beliefs. Being a deist is not like being a Roman Catholic or Sunni Muslim or Theravada Buddhist; there is not a single Deist religious polity or association or group.  It's more of a loose philosophy, and is not really organized per se.  Now, there are some religious movements which align well to the philosophy of Deism.  Unitarianism and it's modern descendant Unitarian Universalism seems to have beliefs which align closely to Deism (Thomas Jefferson, a noted Deist, identified as a Unitarian).  Unitarian Universalism comes out of a Christian tradition (though many would argue it is a non-Christian, or possibly "post-Christian") denomination.  The Bahá'í Faith is a religious tradition that grew up in the atmosphere of Islam (though it, itself, is not a branch of Islam, it was heavily influenced by it) and perhaps could be thought of as to Islam as Unitarian Universalism is to Christianity.  So there are some more modern religions which have their own symbols, and which are closely aligned to Deist beliefs.  Beyond that, however, since Deism is not a religion, but rather a philosophy or perspective on the nature of God, it is unlikely to carry the symbolism of a religion.  -- Jayron 32 17:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Harambe.

 * Note: OP blocked as WP:NOTHERE. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to bring back Harambe, the gorilla? Should they have taken the mothers life instead? --Wúrstbrat (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as is known, death is final. The second part of your question cannot be answered, as there is no sources that you can read about what we should do.  -- Jayron 32 17:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Why would you shoot the gorilla's mother? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "Should" is subjective. 2607:FB90:76E:BBBC:6E1B:3467:553E:4485 (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that the OP is a hot dog. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * More like a doghot ... Rgds ✦  hugarheimur 19:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * My guess is that you are talking about cloning. In that case, provided they kept a sample of the dead gorilla's tissue, that should be possible soon.  However, being genetically identical isn't the same as being completely identical.  After all, identical twins still have some differences, even though they were presumably raised in the same environment.  The environment in which a clone is raised is almost certain to differ significantly from the environment in which the donor was raised, hence you would expect significant differences.  Also, current cloning technology may introduce additional problems, and there are other factors in development which seem to be truly random, such as the location of an individual freckle. StuRat (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I miss you Harambe :(. --Wúrstbrat (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would why you are addressing a dead and illiterate animal with no internet connection on this website's page, but you're either incapable of understanding that question or that's what you're hoping for. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Evidence of language before writing
Are there any physical prove in archaeology of the existence of human spoken language before the earliest forms of writing other than language evolution theories? Is there any physical evidence of spoken language which aren't indirect correlations (i.e. Complex structures and society were formed therefore spoken language exist)? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Biology, perhaps. Anatomically modern humans have the larynx structure which would indicate the potential for speech many hundreds of thousands of years before written language.  Otherwise, I'm not sure what archaeological evidence you have in mind.  The only physical evidence of language is either sound recordings or writing.  Beyond that, I'm not sure what you would count as "physical proof".  -- Jayron 32 18:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * There's also genetics we can look at, where we have preserved DNA in mummies, ice men, bog men, etc. For example, the FOXP2 gene is one of many genes important for language, so looking at which version of this gene they had would give us some idea of their level of linguistic ability. StuRat (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course, when illiterate societies like the Polynesians were first encountered by literate people, they had spoken language. Loraof (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Not archaeology but history, the Torah and the Iliad were composed by illiterate peoples. Sleigh (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Although Category:Indo-European is based on the Proto-Indo-European language evolution theory you are not interested in, it contains articles which show the feedbacks between reconstruction of the language and other forms of evidence (archeology and genetics). See for instance Proto-Indo-European homeland. jnestorius(talk) 10:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Statistical inference can be used applied on the History of writing corpus. Corpus linguistics must be the nearest to what would be able to determine that a given set of people were using such vocable during such (undocumented) period. Some archaeologists will be using it, I think it's what is called "historical linguistics" in   Derrico-and-al2003. --Askedonty (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Muslim beards
Why is it that Muslim men will grow out a beard, but it is always a neck beard or "chin strap". Why do they grow out this type of beard instead of a goatee or full face beard? 199.19.248.107 (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The question is answered in these rulings and in TAHRIM HALQ AL-LIHYAH (Unlawfulness of the Shaving of the Beard) by ALLAMAH MURTADA AL-BAGHDADI. "Shaving the beard is haram based on obligatory precaution, & this includes the hair that grows on the sides of the face. However, there is no problem in shaving the hair that grows on the cheeks." AllBestFaith (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder if there's a similar basis for the traditional facial hair of Amish men (seen here). clpo13(talk) 15:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Turns out it's not quite the same: Shenandoah (beard). Amish men shave their mustaches because mustaches were traditionally associated with military service. clpo13(talk) 15:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See also Beard and Muslim hygienical jurisprudence. clpo13(talk) 15:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, Islam is a diverse religious tradition covering dozens of individual denominations and sects practiced by over 1 billion people. There are Muslim men who wear a variety of facial hair styles, including being clean shaven.  Islam as an entire faith does not have a singular practice regarding male facial hair (though there are religious texts that do cover it).  As noted by the article Beard cited above "many religious Muslim men today, including some scholars, shave their cheeks or are even clean-shaven. Shaving is widely accepted de facto if not de jure, with the exception of the Salafi movement."  -- Jayron 32 17:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Racist Australian island
There is an Island near Australia named after a racial epitaph often called "the N word" in northern america. The island is called "N****R Head". Why hasn't Australia changed the name of this island yet??? 199.19.248.107 (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems mainly to be bureaucratic indifference & inertia, combined with a little buck-passing according to this, from 2007. We have an article at Nigger Head. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * epitaph n. a short piece of writing that honors a dead person
 * epithet n. an offensive or insulting name for someone
 * AllBestFaith (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * See also Edwin Brown. The problem there was that he was so widely known as just "Nigger Brown" - in an era when that was not considered an offensive word - that "The Edwin Brown Stand" wouldn't have meant a great deal to many people.  Some things can be airbrushed from history only by distorting the record.  That's the problem with using current standards of morality to judge the past.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * By the way, you can use the word nigger here, unless you're calling someone a nigger. See WP:UNCENSORED and WP:CIVIL.  † Dismas †|(talk) 03:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe the OP doesn't like to see obscenities emanating from his own keyboard. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If the OP is talking about an Australian subject matter, it would be in line with basic respect for other people's culture to appreciate that "nigger" is acknowledged to be a racial epithet but is not an obscenity in Australia, especially in this context. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The IP geolocates to California, and in the US it's effectively an obscenity... not to mention a risk of getting shot if you say it in the wrong place and/or time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not really an obscenity, in the sense that fortunately, the U.S. has walked back prohibitions from a century ago where publishers were afraid to print certain words. There isn't any word that truly can't appear in a book or even at times on television, and so nothing is objectively obscene; of course, people can call things obscene but it is a matter of personal preference and so people will say it or not say it of almost any word, especially those pertaining to the opposing political party.  So you can't really define an "obscenity" or say for sure any word is or isn't one.  Now yes, people can be hit with cyberbullying or IRL bullying or even violence based on such things, but these can all happen with little or any apparent cause, and all are fairly rare.  Exaggerating the likelihood of such violence is actually itself a very important component of modern racist thinking.  I believe that an average the American who uses this word in the middle of a working-class black neighborhood usually will face no sanction above being called a "fool" in that way that blacks tend to say that word that makes it sound like it really means something. Wnt (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The "N-word" was widely used in American popular culture a century ago. Now we realize that it's racist-hateful and hence obscene - more obscene than any "traditional" obscenity. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, the article about Adventures of Huckleberry Finn describes a lone teacher trying, and I hope failing, to censor that book from the school curriculum in 2009. While the book is subject to censorship attempts at the local level and has frequently appeared on lists of "banned" books, those books are prominently featured at many American libraries.  And of course there is also considerable usage of the word within the black community; I've heard the explanation that it is "their" word, which is, at least, a theory very different from the former concept of obscenity.  It is true of course that the word can be used as a terrible insult and to cause deeply hurt feelings, but the same is true of a great many words. Wnt (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Precisely. At the time it was written, that word (and many other slurs) were tolerated much more openly than they are now. By the late 1950s, things were changing, and it had attained the same status as an obscenity. Lenny Bruce said the word was so powerful that the president should go on TV and just say it, over and over, and turn it powerless (that didn't happen). Meanwhile, are you familiar with a skit that Chevy Chase and Richard Pryor did on SNL in the late 1970s? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:41, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * We have an article on Niggerhead, to describe places and objects. Adding the Australian island would be helpful. We have an article on the word Nigger; see the sections on popular culture, place names, and nicknames. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)