tomdarch wrote:The shape of the typical American government building (think the Capitol Building in D.C.) is an Italian church (think St. Peter's in Rome). I'm still totally unclear on how that transposition of forms happened.
There is a name for that style of architecture but my brain is already asleep... It's from Greek and Roman architecture, WAY pre-dating Christianity. The big columns with the stairs and all.
Admittedly a lot of those Roman structures were temples but they were also gubment buildings.
The dome on the Capitol building is very similar to a temple to that war goddess that I remember seeing on a coast line in Italy.
Man, I really need to go to bed.
[size=75]You are as bad as Alan, and even he hits the mark sometimes. -charlie
"Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill[/size]
Now that I've had some sleep I realize it's called classical or neo-classical architecture. The American gubmint buildings and banks are neo-classical because they aren't using the arch and column design for the interior spaces, just for the facades.
The Parthenon (I hope that's the building I'm thinking of) has columns evenly spaced throughout the interior because they hadn't figured out how to place a roof over an open room without supporting it at various points across its width. The flying buttress kind of fixed that problem except the footprint of a building was much larger than its interior space. Then someone figured out how to transfer the weight to the outside walls without any outward force and, voila, your house is the result.
I realize that this kind of "intellectual" knowledge is anathema to those that started this thread. I hope it makes their brain(s?) fall out.
[size=75]You are as bad as Alan, and even he hits the mark sometimes. -charlie
"Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill[/size]
Alan;
I wish my house was the result! It doesn't look anything like the parthenon, or the capitol rotunda. Anyway, I see your point about the apocalyptic nature of the early Christian church. I've looked over this myself a bit, and it seems to me that it was intended for Christians to live this way regardless of whether the "apocalypse" occurred within their lifetime or not.
Although the word "apocalypse" usually has connotations on a world sclae, one still has to live in the face of an apocalypse on a personal level, i.e. their own eventual death. Given Jesus' teachings that actions in this life will have eternal consequences, it is good to maintain a certain urgency about these matters. It maintains perspective. I think it is still valid for modern Christians.
In addition, Jesus did say that he would return, and modern Christian doctrine maintains this. There are specific teachings that say to remain vigilant, and I think that includes staying true to the original teachings.
M.
I'm currently studying early X-ianity, and you might want to consider the reliability of the source before relying on the later gospels. Mark's gospel was the only canonical gospel written near the life of Jesus. It makes no mention of Jesus' life until his baptism (why would they not include the "holy" birth?) and gives only a hint of resurection in it's original ended (verses 8b-17 were added later). It gives me reason to wonder.
You set my feet upon a rock
And made my footsteps firm.
-U2's adaptation of Psalm 40
Amazing. Why must you people throw stones a something you say doesn't even exist? whadam00, Think on this. The people who are obviously spinning the facts (re:lying) about Marks gospel are the same ones who are loading you up on their anti-version of the Bible. Deconstructionists at their worst. Preachers who don't believe. If you want to really study the Bible...go find some one who believes what they are saying......for instance....
I think Buhism is a joke.... I hate the "trancendental" bullshit that is preached by gurus. Now would you want to take a class from me, on Buhdism? Would you want me in your temple as a "believer"? On one side of my face touting the benifits and then on the other telling the "truely enlightened" the it didn't matter because it was all bullshit anyway??? Think about it.......
I'm not saying anything didn't happen, nor am I jumping to conclusions that something did happen. And I'm deffinately not saying that the Bible is invalid. I simply wish more original text had been preserved instead of destroyed in early antiquity so we would have access to more numerous (and maybe better) accounts of what really happened two thousand years ago.
My point earlier was to demonstrate that it's hard to derive absolute truths out of something so deeply enstilled in faith, which by its very nature is irrational at times.
You set my feet upon a rock
And made my footsteps firm.
-U2's adaptation of Psalm 40
