Conquer Club

Serbia wrote:Exactly. Rooted in religion.

Holding the world in one's hand, or more ominously, under one's foot, has been used as a symbol since antiquity. To citizens of the Roman Empire, the plain round globe held by Jupiter represented the world, or the universe, as the dominion held by the emperor. A 2nd-century coin from the reign of Emperor Hadrian shows the Roman goddess Salus with her foot upon a globus, and a 4th-century coin from the reign of Emperor Constantine I shows her with a globus in hand. The orbis terrarum was central to the iconography of the Tetrarchy, representing the Tetrarchs' restoration of security to the Roman world. Constantine I claimed to have had a vision of a cross above the sun, with the words "In this sign, you shall conquer", at the Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312. His soldiers painted crosses upon their shields, and then defeated their foe, Maxentius.

With the growth of Christianity in the 5th century, the orb (in Latin scriptures orbis terrarum, the 'world of the lands', hence the word "orb") was topped with a cross (hence globus cruciger), symbolising the Christian God's dominion over the world. The emperor held the world in his hand, to show that he ruled it on God's behalf. To non-Christians already familiar with the pagan globe, the surmounting of a cross sent a message about the triumph of Christianity. In medieval iconography, an object's size, relative to that of nearby objects, indicated its relative importance; so the world was small and the one who held it was large, to emphasize the nature of their relationship

UCAbears wrote:Do architects account for the curviture of the earth whilst building bridges?

tzor wrote:

UCAbears wrote:Do architects account for the curviture of the earth whilst building bridges?

No, but no bridge is actually level with the surface of the earth. Large bridges are actually designed to be quite bouncy.

Ponte delle Tette is a small bridge in Venice, Italy. It takes its name ("Bridge of the Tits") from the use of the bridge by prostitutes, who were encouraged to stand topless there to entice and convert suspected homosexuals.[1]

The Carampane di Rialto was one of the red-light districts of Venice in the fifteenth century, by official decree. Sex workers there would open their legs wide or display their breasts from nearby balconies to attract business. The Serenissima supported this heterosexual sex in order to help stem the tide of a growing wave of homosexuality, which had grown into a social problem. By 1509, one writer estimated that there were some 11,565 courtesans working in Venice. Nearby was the Traghetto Del Buso, where courtesans crossed the Grand Canal to another legal red light district, again per orders of the Serenissima. Taxes on prostitution in 1519 helped finance excavation at the Arsenale.

Dukasaur wrote:

tzor wrote:

UCAbears wrote:Do architects account for the curviture of the earth whilst building bridges?

No, but no bridge is actually level with the surface of the earth. Large bridges are actually designed to be quite bouncy.

Click image to enlarge.

By Didier Descouens - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.p ... d=44163562

Ponte delle Tette is a small bridge in Venice, Italy. It takes its name ("Bridge of the Tits") from the use of the bridge by prostitutes, who were encouraged to stand topless there to entice and convert suspected homosexuals.[1]

The Carampane di Rialto was one of the red-light districts of Venice in the fifteenth century, by official decree. Sex workers there would open their legs wide or display their breasts from nearby balconies to attract business. The Serenissima supported this heterosexual sex in order to help stem the tide of a growing wave of homosexuality, which had grown into a social problem. By 1509, one writer estimated that there were some 11,565 courtesans working in Venice. Nearby was the Traghetto Del Buso, where courtesans crossed the Grand Canal to another legal red light district, again per orders of the Serenissima. Taxes on prostitution in 1519 helped finance excavation at the Arsenale.

tzor wrote:

UCAbears wrote:Do architects account for the curviture of the earth whilst building bridges?

No, but no bridge is actually level with the surface of the earth. Large bridges are actually designed to be quite bouncy.

Serbia wrote:tzor, I'm going to forgive your ignorance, because you're, well, ignorant.

Serbia wrote:When I say something is "rooted in religion", that doesn't make it "right".

Serbia wrote:I'm not debating the legitimacy of their interpretation of Islam, just like I'm not debating the legitimacy of Christians believing in a flat earth. To be honest with you, and in fact any follower of any religion, to presume that you are correct in your beliefs while casting doubt on the faith of others has always been amazing to me, but that's not what we're talking about right now.

Serbia wrote:I'd love for you to look my cousin directly in the eye and try to tell him that his belief in a flat earth has nothing to do with religion.

tzor wrote:

Serbia wrote:I'd love for you to look my cousin directly in the eye and try to tell him that his belief in a flat earth has nothing to do with religion.

Why? I have a friend of mine who is a DEMOCRAT. I could explain to her why she's wrong until the cows come home and it still won't matter. When people don't want to listen they don't listen ... PERIOD. His insistence doesn't make it true. His fake excuses doesn't make it true. Whether those fake excuses invoke religion, science or even politics.

Serbia wrote:tzor, you're a presumptuous fool, and I do not say that lightly. Hate religion? You obviously do not know me.

I'd love for you to look my cousin directly in the eye and try to tell him that his belief in a flat earth has nothing to do with religion. That's a debate you can never win. In fact, sir, how dare you question another's faith. You truly are a fool.

riskllama wrote:wrong about what, exactly?

riskllama wrote:well, i was kinda waiting for tzors' response, but thx 4 responding!!!

DoomYoshi wrote:

Serbia wrote:tzor, you're a presumptuous fool, and I do not say that lightly. Hate religion? You obviously do not know me.

I'd love for you to look my cousin directly in the eye and try to tell him that his belief in a flat earth has nothing to do with religion. That's a debate you can never win. In fact, sir, how dare you question another's faith. You truly are a fool.

So here's a question. If something is "false" hockey and is in fact baseball, can you say you are going to a hockey game at Fenway park?

Similarly, I spent much time trying to convince universalschiro and AslantheKing that creationism has no Christian precedent before the 1800s. Therefore, it is from "false" Christianity and I could just as well call it hockey.

So under your definition, I could just as easily say your cousin's beliefs are rooted in hockey, could I not?

People hold beliefs because of social groups, not because of any roots at all.

notyou2 wrote:Adam and Eve, evolution and the creation of the universe.

Serbia wrote:What the **** are you going on about?

tzor wrote:

Serbia wrote:What the fuck are you going on about?

Space shuttles flying o'er your head.
But that doesn't mean that you are currently brain dead,
Thinking's not for ye,
No
You'll never understand what needs no explaining,
Because you see
You're too dumb to argue with me.

fixed the word "fuc