|
PMush Perfect posted:What use is gold to a baby? he's a growing boy
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
PMush Perfect posted:What use is gold to a baby? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 08:52
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Gold has intrinsic value which obviously Jesus would want for he would be granting the ultimate value to Mankind (salvation) and would therefore deserve by right all real value (all gold).
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 09:21
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Gold has intrinsic value lmbo
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 09:23
|
|
|
PMush Perfect posted:Jesus only accepts bitcoins. As a silverbug, Judas was bitter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 09:24
|
|
|
The new testament and the wizard of oz: a bimetallic contention
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 10:53
|
|
|
I’d... probably watch an action movie that was Jesus kicking down the doors of hell, then kicking rear end all the way to Satan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 13:48
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:I’d... probably watch an action movie that was Jesus kicking down the doors of hell, then kicking rear end all the way to Satan. Starring Chuck Norris...
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Funny you should say that, but Mel Gibson is allegedly working on a sequel to the Passion, which will probably be about the Harrowing of Hell (where Jesus goes to Hell, beats up a bunch of demons, and brings the Old Testament prophets to Heaven).
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Well, I suppose Jim Caviezel has to get the most out of all that fight training he did for Person of Interest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
If the idea of linking to a Family Guy video didn't make me vomit in my mouth, I'd post that "Passion of the Christ 2" clip.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
For decades this was thought to be an "ancient spinning toy: It's made out of baked clay and is from ancient Mesopotamia. But now archaeologists believe that it's a mace head because while it doesn't resemble any toys found from the same period it does resemble other maces that archaeologists has found.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
Huh, how strong is pottery that you could make a weapon out of it? I would have thought that it'd break as soon as it hid something, even if the pottery was solid and fired through.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Huh, how strong is pottery that you could make a weapon out of it? I would have thought that it'd break as soon as it hid something, even if the pottery was solid and fired through. If it's nice and solid and thick it should actually hold up pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
I, too, wish to beat people to death with a fidget spinner.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
The Basilica Cistern was built by seven thousand slaves, it's believed that this column which is engraved with crying eyes was built to pay tribute to the hundreds of slaves that died during the construction:
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:The Basilica Cistern was built by seven thousand slaves, it's believed that this column which is engraved with crying eyes was built to pay tribute to the hundreds of slaves that died during the construction: if anyone's interested, it's my understanding that the alternate explanation for the hen's eye column involves the argument that a lot of construction materials used for this cistern and its relatives were presumably recycled from older nearby projects, projects that sometimes featured old pagan imagery like depictions of classical monsters or depictions of the old mediterranean gods and their associates, these things are also found here - since most cisterns aren't exactly open for public display, tho in modern times this one's a popular site for tourists, they'd be a good place to recycle otherwise soundly constructed stone materials featuring images well out of public favor by the time of Justinian and this cistern's original construction and iirc there are 3 columns in this particular cistern featuring older pagan imagery, the hen's eye maybe being one of them along with 2 medusa heads placed upsidedown either to protect us from her gaze, to humiliate them or for engineering reasons anyway the idea is that the hen's eye column is just a peacock column, peacocks were an animal that was once prominently featured in greek mythology, like being the animal that pulled hera's chariot, or in tales like the demise of argus, the hundred eyed titan, who loyally guarded io until he was killed by hermes but was later immortalized by hera as a peacock's tail, its use in period art is thought to represent protection, wealth, renewal/regrowth, etc tho it has other associations with sorrow, the powerful all-seeing-eye and the evil eye curse, it's been hypothesized that all these columns were recycled from a related site since there's a tangential association between these two depictions of evil glances - as far as i know that's not so much a fact as it is an argument but maybe it's neat background info that illustrates other parts of the cistern's construction even if the weeping slaves explanation the one most commonly cited as an aside since i brought it up before, peacock imagery was also sometimes used in early christian tombs and worship sites because its association with renewal could also communicate resurrection to people still connected to the metaphors of the classics, at least that one's a bit more of an established fact e: now with pic 
hard counter has a new favorite as of 17:38 on Oct 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
i love the idea of having slaves and making them build a monument to their own sacrifice. like aside from whatever pyramid, just like "hey boys, now youre literally gonna build a lil thing about how hosed up this is"
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 08:13
|
|
|
one guy: "this is messed up" me: "yeah it is. you can take the day off & dont tell the others"
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
Archaeologists try to read everything through the lens of a modern art critic or assume everything is about religion. See all the jokes in sci-fi about how Mickey and Goofy were obviously animal-headed gods of lost America.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 10:44
|
|
|
"idk what this is for, so im gonna say ritual purposes" has the paper on the nacirema been linked in here already?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
On the other hand, I think it is hard for people nowadays to realize just how important religion was in the past. When Arias was promoting his heresy, he literally came up with jingles and sea shanties for people to sing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:Archaeologists try to read everything through the lens of a modern art critic or assume everything is about religion. See all the jokes in sci-fi about how Mickey and Goofy were obviously animal-headed gods of lost America. Why do you think renowned art historian Robert Langdon wears a valuable collector's edition watch on the wrist of his arm featuring renowned cartoon character Mickey Mouse, created by renowned animator Walt Disney?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
InediblePenguin posted:"idk what this is for, so im gonna say ritual purposes" 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
In general it's misleading to think of the past as a time where everybody was super pious and religious, because all too people see this religiosity through the lens of modernity, which draws a clear line between secular thought and deed and religiosity - when you go to work that's secular, but when you go to church that's religious; doing the dishes is secular, but when you set aside some time for prayer afterwards that's religious etc. This distinction didn't exist at all in earlier times. Everything, from working the fields to politics or warfare was simultaneously an act of worship and/or something sanctified by having a firm place in the divinely ordained universal order. The Sumerian kings had to ritually confirm their place in this celestial hierarchy every year; failure to do do would effectively have meant giving up on the throne. There was nothing symbolic about this - the liturgy shaped reality in a very real and tangible way. Medieval kings saw their office as closely related to a clerical ordination; the German kings wore a dalmatic (like a deacon) and enjoyed certain liturgical prerogatives that were otherwise closed for laity, while the kings of England and France were anointed with holy oils and cured the sick with their holy touch. Early modern Catholics sanctified time itself by using prayer as a measure of time and so on. Some archaeologists all too quickly recede to a “cultic“ or “religious“ explanation, but on the other hand it can't be understated how literally all of existence was religion for our forefathers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
in general there's not a problem with assigning or presenting a religious, cultic, art critic-y, metaphorical, whatever explanation for something so long as you can still create an evidenced argument for it - for e.g. if you believed the medusa heads being upside down in the cistern had a symbolic significance of some kind because of how striking it looks you'd still want to cite other examples of, say, pagan statues being defaced by christians or cite other examples of medusa's gaze being set askew to protect onlookers (by far the least likely explanation, the gorgoneion was a trendy motif that appeared in an absolute ton in greek and later byzantine art with no special adjustment) just the same way you'd want to give an evidenced argument if you believed there were practical engineering reasons to do them upside down (the argument is that the shape better supports a load when put this way; also if these heads were taken from the site they think they were from then these heads used to be at the tops of columns so the 'neck' would already be sized and slotted for a column, you could then easily file down the crown for a base instead of having to file and size both sides to keep them right side up) the problem is when amateurish archaeologists forget the evidence part and go on their own tangents, there's a fun book called Motel Of The Mysteries about amateurish future archeologists coming up with wacky explanations when excavating things from our time and they make claims like bathtubs are actually porcelain burial sarcophaguses, that deals with this issue hard counter has a new favorite as of 23:23 on Oct 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
InediblePenguin posted:"idk what this is for, so im gonna say ritual purposes" just in case it hadn't been linked previously: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Body_Ritual_among_the_Nacirema
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
InediblePenguin posted:just in case it hadn't been linked previously: What the gently caress is going on with that article? I can't parse it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Metal Geir Skogul posted:What the gently caress is going on with that article? I can't parse it. It's a satirical look at anthropology and modern American society by writing about it like anthropologists write about ancient civilizations. Read some of the weird names backwards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Metal Geir Skogul posted:What the gently caress is going on with that article? I can't parse it. It's satire. Nacirema is an anagram.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
The formatting is all weird and not what I'd expect from wikipedia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Metal Geir Skogul posted:What the gently caress is going on with that article? I can't parse it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:It's satire. Nacirema is an anagram. it's just American backwards, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Metal Geir Skogul posted:The formatting is all weird and not what I'd expect from wikipedia. Because it’s not Wikipedia? Elyv posted:it's just American backwards, isn't it? That’s still technically an anagram.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
There's actually a bunch of "Nacirema" articles covering all of "their" society if you Google it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
its meant to be a jarring self-examination not an indictment of academia
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Former DILF posted:its meant to be a jarring self-examination not an indictment of academia this is very true, although I realize my framing may have seemed to imply otherwise
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
This is probably controversial but it's a neat hypothesis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EszwYNvvCjQ Short version: people (may have) really had a hey-nonny-nonny kind of walk back then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Trabant posted:This is probably controversial but it's a neat hypothesis: I mentioned this in the military history thread where it was initially posted, but I'm not surprised. From my studies of medieval footwear, turn shoes like those (the leather is sewn together and then turned inside-out for wearing to put the seam on the inside of the shoe) were extremely thin and had no sole, much like modern "toe shoes" and similar barefoot running shoes. It was just a layer of leather thick enough to protect the bare foot, and that's about it. Which wasn't a huge issue back then, as they mostly walked on soft ground like dirt and grass. You start wanting comfy shoes with tough soles when you have to do all your walking on concrete, asphalt, wood, and stone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
He made a follow-up post after a lot of people went "ehhhh" at the idea. Includes a link to a (German) article on gait and a short film of people walking around: https://www.patreon.com/posts/heel-first-or-of-13680059 Tl;dr: Actual archeology or anthropology do not support his idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 20:10
|
|
