|
*transubstantiates into ur rear end*
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 12:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
Please don't doxology me.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
Libluini posted:I've been told many years ago that the unborn automatically land in hell because they've never been baptised. I guess they had the less nice version of the bible The catholic priests here told us that babies and unborn who die go straight to heaven and turn into angels.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 12:10
|
|
|
Wasn't limbo invented by Catholic theologians for exactly this purpose?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 12:53
|
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:Wasn't limbo invented by Catholic theologians for exactly this purpose? Yup.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
Grevling posted:How does that even work? Does that mean if I wear a condom during sex, the soul of the person that theoretically could have been conceived goes straight to hell? He wrote "born" not "conceived." Also it's purgatory. 
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 13:20
|
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:Wasn't limbo invented by Catholic theologians for exactly this purpose? It probably originated less with theologians than with average parish priests who wouldn't tell bereaved parents their dead child is going to hell, for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
You also have the issue of the "virtuous pagan" in an era of the church when most members were converts and had family and friends who still followed older traditions. There was a lot pushing for some form of "not quite hell, not quite heaven"in the early days.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
Strategic Tea posted:Wasn't limbo invented by Catholic theologians for exactly this purpose? It was invented to see how low they could go
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:Did you guys know that you sound like complete idiots when you dismiss two thousand years of Catholic theology by saying "what about cum lmao" What about those of us who dismiss it because its all bullshit?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
The rich trove of Catholic theology acknowledges the existence of demonic spermjacking:Summa Theologica posted:As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xv): "Many persons affirm that they have had the experience, or have heard from such as have experienced it, that the Satyrs and Fauns, whom the common folk call incubi, have often presented themselves before women, and have sought and procured intercourse with them. Hence it is folly to deny it. But God's holy angels could not fall in such fashion before the deluge. Hence by the sons of God are to be understood the sons of Seth, who were good; while by the daughters of men the Scripture designates those who sprang from the race of Cain. Nor is it to be wondered at that giants should be born of them; for they were not all giants, albeit there were many more before than after the deluge." Still if some are occasionally begotten from demons, it is not from the seed of such demons, nor from their assumed bodies, but from the seed of men taken for the purpose; as when the demon assumes first the form of a woman, and afterwards of a man; just as they take the seed of other things for other generating purposes, as Augustine says (De Trin. ii.), so that the person born is not the child of a demon, but of a man.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Oh boy I am excited for more hot takes from dorkinsy internet atheists
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Dalael posted:What about those of us who dismiss it because its all bullshit? It is all bullshit, but that doesn't mean it's not endlessly fascinating and the product of intense, lively, gorgeous intellectual effort Also aren't you the Atlantis guy
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
The Atlantis Guy versus The Incredible Moaner
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
I'm looking to go to Rome this summer, so what Roman stuff or cool museums is there in Rome which are not immediately obvious? I'm not much for art/paintings, and want to get all the ancient ruins/medieval poo poo I can in the few days I'm there.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:I'm looking to go to Rome this summer, so what Roman stuff or cool museums is there in Rome which are not immediately obvious? I'm not much for art/paintings, and want to get all the ancient ruins/medieval poo poo I can in the few days I'm there. Look for cool ceilings! My brother went to Rome and came back with an album of very cool decorative ceilings.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:It is all bullshit, but that doesn't mean it's not endlessly fascinating and the product of intense, lively, gorgeous intellectual effort I mean we can definitely prove that Bolivia is real, but can we do the same to God?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
In a thousand years someone will passionately come to the defense of body thetan scholarship.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
Im in Rome for 4 days. My girlfriend has been and I haven't. Apart from the Colosseum I'm not interested in doing the generic Touristy stuff since Rome deserves more time than I have to dedicate to it. What are some uber nerdy off the beaten track things I can go see? e: places of historical importance, not well-known sites...idk. I'm into the mil history and cold war thread, I trust you guys by associates. This thread is amazing but its one of those ima read this when i have bunch of time or im taking a serious dump thread for me. (im on page 257) Waroduce fucked around with this message at 02:52 on May 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
If you're only gonna do one tourist thing the forum is better than the colosseum As for off beat things, the cat sanctuary is super cool if you like cats and ruins in the same place. It's about a block away from where Caesar died, too
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
Castel Sant'Angelo isn't exactly out of the way, since it's right there on the Tiber and just down the road from St. Peter's, but a lot of Americans I talked to had never heard of it and it's not one of the super common Vatican/Colosseum/Forum/Pantheon destinations. Anyway, I thought it was a lot of fun, since the whole thing was built up addition by addition over the centuries; so as you walk around you go all the way from the Roman era foundations laid for the tomb of Hadrian, up to Napoleonic era fortifications. It's an interesting cross section of Roman and Papal history. Also there's some excellent views of the city from the roof, and a little bar/cafe overlooking the Vatican.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
Who was the first human being to rule one million people? Ten million?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Hmm... I'd guess an Egyptian pharaoh. Mesopotamia was full of city states so I doubt any of them had a million subjects. We wouldn't have good enough statistics to be able to tell you exactly who it was, though.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
I'd guess an Egyptian, Persian, or Chinese ruler, but I don't think it's possible to say who and where with certainty. From some poking around on the internet it seems like the current thinking is that even the largest cities didn't start reliably housing more than a hundred thousand people until around 700 BCE. e: It's a little strange to think that famous ancient cities like Babylon were about equal in population to minor US cities like Jackson, MS or Macon, GA. fantastic in plastic fucked around with this message at 04:09 on May 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
Assyria seems like a plausible candidate to me
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
fantastic in plastic posted:I'd guess an Egyptian, Persian, or Chinese ruler, but I don't think it's possible to say who and where with certainty. From some poking around on the internet it seems like the current thinking is that even the largest cities didn't start reliably housing more than a hundred thousand people until around 700 BCE. now I want a time travel story where ann arbor is transported into the ancient world and becomes the great metropolitan centre of a vast and cruel empire
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Who was the first human being to rule one million people? Ten million? Well there weren't a whole 10 million humans until you get to 6000 BC, and there probably wasn't over 1 million humans on any one continent until 10,000 BC. That gives us minimum years it could be possible. Egypt is generally believed to have passed 1 million people under the same king in anywhere between 4000 and 1800 BC. Now for the latest possible time that the first one ruling ten million people could happen, we know that the Achaemenid Empire was ruling at least 16 million people by 500 BC, possibly as many as 36 million as its domains stretched all the way from parts of modern Libya, to parts of Greece, to parts of India. Keep in mind that various pre-China states probably passed the 1 million and 10 million marks earlier, but it's a lot harder to figure out their historical locations of actual rule, let alone their populations. Egypt has the convenience of relatively constrained places people could actually live and a ton of historical research going back millenia. And figuring the Achaemenid Empire's population and extent of authority is made easier by it existing after well-established writing systems in the area and a bunch of monuments and outside sources of when Cyrus the Great came to town and wooped some rear end or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:Did you guys know that you sound like complete idiots when you dismiss two thousand years of Catholic theology by saying "what about cum lmao" Do you really think anyone here gives a poo poo about sounding like idiots?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Egypt is generally believed to have passed 1 million people under the same king in anywhere between 4000 and 1800 BC. Any more info on this? Narmer unified Egypt in 3000 BC and from my understanding, the first few of Egypt's dynasties were its very most absolute and centralized; all power was in the hands of the royal family. It was only later on that different factions started to assert control. So if they had 1 million people it'd have been under him at first right? If he doesn't qualify then I don't think the later kings would really. edit: wait, you mean the 1 million figure could have been reached at any time between 4000 and 1800 BC?  I seeAnyway my money's on Narmer for 1 million and the Duke of Zhou for 10.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 05:34
|
|
Ras Het posted:Did you guys know that you sound like complete idiots when you dismiss two thousand years of Catholic theology by saying "what about cum lmao" Since 2007 has posting 'take me/this more seriously!' ever resulted in goons taking it more seriously?
|
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
Evidence pilling up about unparralleled brinze age bridge battle in northen europe.quote:Sometimes it’s easy to forget about the history of people before writing. Technically a region without writing is prehistoric; North America before colonization, or Western Europe deep into the Bronze age. 1,000 years after the epic of Gilgamesh, and right around the (estimated) same time as the Siege of Troy and the Exodus of Jews from Egypt, a massive battle raged in Northern Europe, fought by veteran warriors around 1250 BCE and leaving hundreds, possibly thousands dead.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 11:46
|
|
|
I wonder what incredibly dumb reason they were really fighting for.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing that, that's very cool and interesting. If they dumped the bodies in the river, maybe it was some sort of sacrifice? Or maybe, since some of them were south europeans, they were in hostile territory and needed to keep moving.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
quote:Technically a region without writing is prehistoric; North America before colonization C'mon article guys check your drat facts.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:C'mon article guys check your drat facts. Well, maybe not wrong if they're differentiating N. AMerica and Mesoamerica. Did the Mississippian cultures have writing?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I wonder what incredibly dumb reason they were really fighting for. To get to the other side!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Well, maybe not wrong if they're differentiating N. AMerica and Mesoamerica. Did the Mississippian cultures have writing? Almost certainly not. There was a reasonably highly developed artistic culture (they made some very cool copper plaques of bird people), but there's no evidence whatsoever that writing was ever known to them.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Well, maybe not wrong if they're differentiating N. AMerica and Mesoamerica. Did the Mississippian cultures have writing? There's no evidence for writing north of Mexico. If I were looking I'd check the southwest, the Mexica are believed to have come from Arizona-ish and may have had continued contact with that area.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Any more info on this? Narmer unified Egypt in 3000 BC and from my understanding, the first few of Egypt's dynasties were its very most absolute and centralized; all power was in the hands of the royal family. It was only later on that different factions started to assert control. So if they had 1 million people it'd have been under him at first right? If he doesn't qualify then I don't think the later kings would really. Yeah it's at some point between them. Reason is, that's the range we find from recent reliable sources: some believe the largest Egyptian kingdom of each time stood just below the mark (around 900,000 say) all the way up to 1800 BC. Others believe it could have been reached as far back as 4000 BC, with the realm exceeding 2 million by 3000 BC or so.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
Here's the weirdest question I think I've asked here: do any of you know the hieroglyphics for "semen"? The Set/Horus jizz story was a topic of conversation earlier and I couldn't find an answer.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2017 15:37
|
|