an impressive ancient secular building

colosseum ?
(mind, it's falling to bits)

Good Call..
I think Rome was a republic at that time?

That made me think of the Pantheon (another chin dropper) but that was built as a temple to all of the ancient gods of Rome (wiki).

Hi rusty spanner. I read you post and readily agree with

All opinions, no matter how seemingly rational or deluded NEED to be challenged on a regular basis

As I said in my post, questioning is good and healthy, while ridicule (and in some cases downright hatred) is not.

That's impressive. Largely built during the Crusades though…

Another picture of what Johnners posted:

Pretty much all castles are secular IMO, even if they're built to keep other religions out. On that note, how about the Great Wall of China?

Thank God this threads died a death.

Which great wall of China?

there are several of them 🙂

You might want to look at this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/oct/01/fossil-ardi-human-race

Interesting why chimps haven't evolved much as they put it yet humans have.

Mr MW, the famous one what you can see from space of course. 🙂

marsdenman – was it Rogers Profanisaurus?

😆

not too far off….

mmm – Viz version of The Big Book anyone?
Black Bag – the faithful border disciple…?
Buster Gonad and his unfeasibley large arc?
Sid The Very Nice Man?

We didn't make 1000 posts – damn (oops!)

Dont be such a defeatist Buzz, all it takes is a bit of faith. Now where were me? Oh yes, there's this bloke, big white beard, lives on a cloud, enjoys a bit of a smite … go on, you know you want to.

beanum – Member
Good Call..
I think Rome was a republic at that time?

No the emperors had been in power for a little while….

its construction started between 70 and 72 AD[1] under the emperor Vespasian and was completed in 80 AD under Titus[2],

But in general I'd disagree with Woppit, despite my being an atheist.

Without religion, the churches and cathedrals wouldn't have been built and they are generally the most impressive structures built for about a 1000 odd years. But of course without religion, the masses may have been doing something more constructive than fighting over Jerusalem for xhundred years.

Just as an aside I recently found out that when William of Normandy invaded in 1066, his little expedition was blessed by the Pope. Nice.

when William of Normandy invaded in 1066, his little expedition was blessed by the Pope. Nice.

So an invasion force of between 5,000 and 8,000 Norman knights who are blessed by the Pope attack, invade, and conquer, the whole of Anglo-Saxon England ……… and still you want proof that God exists.

😯

Yes ernie, but only because we were eating pot gruell and watching sir Jeremy of Kyle at the time.

lol ernie – the point I should have added maybe – England at the time being a prosperous, peaceful, CHRISTIAN kingdom.

Whose side was God on?

Natwest tower.
Empire state building.
Petronas towers.
Forbidden kingdom Peking.
Pyramids.
Modern housing (it doesn't have to be big to be impressive).
Any building whos construction is aimed at sytematising functionality within it – hospitals for instance.
Cape Canaveral.
The international space station.
If we spread the definition to constructs that aren't necessarily buildings – the Saturn 5 rocket.
The space shuttle.
The Hubble space telescope.

Etc etc etc etc…

Whose side was God on?

Well since God is definitely a Catholic ……. and therefore probably a tad biased, I'll let you draw your own conclusions on that one.

Although to be fair to William the Bastard, as I understand it had he not received approval from the Pope, then he wouldn't have invaded England.

I believe he petitioned the Pope first, and when the Pope asked why he should have the Crown of England, William claimed that it had been promised to him by a cousin or something. Apparently the Pope said, "fair do's mate", gave him a quick blessing and said, "on your way son".

The pyramids had a religious function surely?

And none of those you've mentioned are as awe inspiring to me as, for instance the interior of the Duomo in Milan. (I'll sidestep the Forbidden City as I've never been there.)

By the way, I forgot to mention in all the excitement. Just in case you were wondering…

I haven't done the Alpha "Course".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGouH7c3GI0

The politics behind 1066 was quite messy… all stemming from Edward the Confessor who died without leaving a clear heir (a bad move in those days).

William (who as a Norman was actually descended from Viking stock) claimed that Harold (who also had Scandinavian ancestors – they were probably distant cousins) had pledged allegiance to him some years before, after being rescued from a shipwreck off Pontieu in northern France. William also had a tenous bloodline claim through his great aunt.

The wild card was Harald Hardrada, King of Norway, who had an even more tenous bloodline claim but was talked into invading by Tostig Godwinson (our Harold's brother). They were duly wiped out at Stamford Bridge, but the home team then lost at Hastings due to battle-weariness brought on by the overcrowded fixture list. Plus ca change.

So you could actually argue it was all just inter-Viking rivalry… 😉

So the Anglo-Saxons weren't even being ruled by an 'Anglo-Saxon king' at the time elliptic ?

Were these Anglo-Saxons crap or what 😕

Back on the topic of the Alpha Course, it seems someone in Guildford decided the assist the Alpha Course smartarses with a simple answer to their cleverer-than-thou question:

http://twitpic.com/jqase

I'm rather pleased that I managed to hijack a thread and take it from The Alpha Course onto a discussion of Viking politics of the 11th century!

from The Alpha Course onto a discussion of Viking politics of the 11th century!

Yeah, but it never went anywhere IdleJon 😐

………. I was hoping to find out why the Anglo-Saxons were such a bunch of surrender-monkeys

Cos they were peace-loving* Christians. I thought that was obvious.

*as are all Christians past or present, excluding the Northmen, judging by the comments on this thread.

Blame Aethelred the Unready, who ran away to Normandy and let the Danish king Sveyn Forkbeard take the English throne for a year in 1013, and then his son Edmund Ironside who lost the Battle of Ashingdon in 1016 to Sveyn's son Canute, yes that Canute.

After Canute and a couple of his sons had their turn as King, the Anglo-Saxon lineage was sort-of restored with Edward the Confessor, but his mother was actually from Norman stock. By that stage the royal house of Wessex was thoroughly entangled with the Normans and the great Earls of Wessex, East Anglia, Mercia and Northumbria (all established by Canute and with powerbases of their own) weren't happy about it, but the manouvering to get their candidate – Harold – onto the throne after Edward's death opened the door to the other two claimants, Harald Hardrada and William.

And the Pope was just taking the chance to back a winner… 😉

You think my feelings have been 'hurt' SFB ? That's funny …….

I can'r remember saying that…

'cause I thought that you have sounded a little 'bruised' on occasions.

more puzzled at the way you seem to keep responding to things no one has said

I've been away for a while, but one thing that did come to me that you said I'd been slagging off the religionists, and I don't think I have, I usually address myself to ideas, which after all have no feelings, and there's no reason why a person holding a particular belief should be upset if the belief is criticised, as presumably it still makes sense to them whatever anyone else may think of it…

elliptic – you are clearly a very boring teacher who likes to take all the fun out of history by using incorrect spelling.
Everyone knows that his name was C nut and that his son was Hardicnut…..or was Haveacnut ? 😕

…. and wasn't there also a Harold Harefoot ? I guess he was a bit quicker off the mark than Ethelred the Unready, eh ?

simonfbarnes – Member

You think my feelings have been 'hurt' SFB ? That's funny …….

I can'r remember saying that…

simonfbarnes – Member

is that "tyger" has no answer, so retreats into obfuscation whilst claiming hurt "feelings"

aren't you confusing him/her with ernie ?

aren't you confusing him/her with ernie ?

that was a question. I quite convinced you've been pulling our legs for days, so no, I never thought your feelings were hurt 🙂