Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The biggest churches in the world: Anglo-Norman eleventh-century cathedrals

stainedglassattitudes.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 114 posts

Re: The biggest churches in the world: Anglo-Norman eleventh-century cathedrals

#71

Post by cat199 »

pvg wrote: post #26
barry-cotter wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Eastern Roman Empire fell in 1453 when the Seljuk Turks conquered Constantinople. The Ottoman Emperor's titles included Kaysar-i-Rum. I can't remember the dates but when the Greeks were conquering Crete their co-linguists described the conquerors as Hellenes while they were Romans. If you go by the criterion of (primary) self-identification there were Romans until the 1800s at least. By unbroken institutional con…

Sure, but if you take an even mildly expansive definition of 'Roman' then Romans just straight up built the Hagia Sophia and the crusaders of the 4th crusade are even less Roman so maybe we're mostly longwindedly agreeing?

from the other perspective, the only ones not calling them roman are 'us' ... so there's that

Re: The biggest churches in the world: Anglo-Norman eleventh-century cathedrals

#72

Post by second--shift »

ginko wrote: post #37
teleforce wrote: post #7

In order to understand how the architecture of middle ages and modern intertwined between Christian and Muslim worlds, please check this excellent video [1]. It's never ceased to amaze me by the fact that now most of the mosques now look more like Christian's Hagia Sophia and churches now looks more like Muslim Spanish Moors' Mezquita. Also it's often an oblivious fact that Norman also conquered Sicily (after Muslim'…

I've been to the Mezquita-Catedral in Cordóba. It's a fascinating building and I do agree that it sort of forms a pair with Hagia Sophia, but I'm having a hard time seeing any influences it may have had on Western church architecture. Other than the gothic altar section built square in the middle of the building it is very much a mosque with a completely different floor plan from the typical cross-shaped churches com…

As an aside, the name of the city is Córdoba - not "Cordóba" which would be the default pronunciation with no accent.

That said, Spanish / Moorish middle-age architecture is among the best and most beautiful in my opinion. Seeing how the later Christians borrowed so heavily from Islamic architecture and tradition shows that good ideas survive the test of time.

Re: The biggest churches in the world: Anglo-Norman eleventh-century cathedrals

#73

Post by uticus »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #70

The universe became conscious in the form of humans and asked ‘who made me?’ These historical artifacts are a beautiful testimony to this profound question that we can only contemplate for a small amount of time before we turn back into stardust.

Not the place for apologetics on either side, but I've never grasped how the idea that we weren't created can be logically persuasive.

Emotionally persuasive, maybe.

Re: The biggest churches in the world: Anglo-Norman eleventh-century cathedrals

#74

Post by uticus »

AlwaysRock wrote: post #68
hef19898 wrote: post #12

One thing that always amazes me was how these cathedrals were build. The techniques were amazing, even more so for the time. And then there is the way those specialized workers and architects were treated and paid. Some of that resembled modern workers rights, e.g. free weekends, limited working hours, safety. I guess it always helps to be part of very skilled, very limited group of workers that is very high demand.

What impresses me is that many of these cathedrals were built slowly over many many years. Sometimes hundreds of years. Each new king or ruler would start a new "wing" of the cathedral and many times the construction would outlive their rule.

Indeed. Generational work was often involved. Don't see that much anymore.

Re: The biggest churches in the world: Anglo-Norman eleventh-century cathedrals

#75

Post by rich_sasha »

bencollier49 wrote: post #57
rich_sasha wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peterborough Cathedral is very grand and beautiful, but all human figures, sculpted and painted, have their faces removed (chipped off or painted) from Reformation days.

Unfortunately that's common in a lot of places. Many of the cathedrals were actually used to billet roundhead troops, and they seem to have spent their free time doing that sort of thing.

It's an interesting piece of history at least.

Re: The biggest churches in the world: Anglo-Norman eleventh-century cathedrals

#76

Post by beecafe »

uticus wrote: post #73
mensetmanusman wrote: post #70

The universe became conscious in the form of humans and asked ‘who made me?’ These historical artifacts are a beautiful testimony to this profound question that we can only contemplate for a small amount of time before we turn back into stardust.

Not the place for apologetics on either side, but I've never grasped how the idea that we weren't created can be logically persuasive. Emotionally persuasive, maybe.

Belief in being created requires belief in some being (your creator, or their creator, etc...), _not_ being created - the prime mover. Unless you believe in an infinite regress of creators I guess.

Re: The biggest churches in the world: Anglo-Norman eleventh-century cathedrals

#77

Post by netcan »

bobthechef wrote: post #63
orwin wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think its political more than ceremonial. And you can now find the same effect in skyscrapers.

Neither ceremonial nor political, but religious. (Religion is also more fundamental than politics.) Skyscrapers are precisely the OP's point: they're not religious. In previous centuries, the tallest buildings were religious. They were at the center of town. Or of course you can interpret skyscrapers as cathedrals of the new religion.

IMO, the (archeological) designation of "ceremonial" applies to all these. Distinctions between religion, politics, culture and such are often only visible once you are culturally fluent.

Roman Temples tended to have all these roles. Ceremony & Religion. Political activity. Treasury/mint activities. Etc.

Re: The biggest churches in the world: Anglo-Norman eleventh-century cathedrals

#78

Post by greenonions »

beecafe wrote: post #76
uticus wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the place for apologetics on either side, but I've never grasped how the idea that we weren't created can be logically persuasive. Emotionally persuasive, maybe.

Belief in being created requires belief in some being (your creator, or their creator, etc...), _not_ being created - the prime mover. Unless you believe in an infinite regress of creators I guess.

Infinite regress of creators sounds the most compelling to me. Wouldn't God also wonder why he exists?

Re: The biggest churches in the world: Anglo-Norman eleventh-century cathedrals

#79

Post by rory »

uticus wrote: post #73
mensetmanusman wrote: post #70

The universe became conscious in the form of humans and asked ‘who made me?’ These historical artifacts are a beautiful testimony to this profound question that we can only contemplate for a small amount of time before we turn back into stardust.

Not the place for apologetics on either side, but I've never grasped how the idea that we weren't created can be logically persuasive. Emotionally persuasive, maybe.

No argument on either side is particularly logically persuasive, so the best we can strive for is plausible.

Something akin to "Dust Theory" from Permutation City is a semi-plausible theory of non-creation (although, as it's fiction and must at least pretend to entertain a plot, some happenings in the book are much more far-fetched).

Edit: although on second thought maybe the book's actually more of a theory of creation, and we're the insects. I don't know.

Re: The biggest churches in the world: Anglo-Norman eleventh-century cathedrals

#80

Post by lanstin »

beecafe wrote: post #76
uticus wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the place for apologetics on either side, but I've never grasped how the idea that we weren't created can be logically persuasive. Emotionally persuasive, maybe.

Belief in being created requires belief in some being (your creator, or their creator, etc...), _not_ being created - the prime mover. Unless you believe in an infinite regress of creators I guess.

God as a the Ground of Being in the words of the Christian Existentialists. God is not separate from creation, God as Verb, God as transcendent and so on. The completion of the chain of ordinals. There is a lot of theology on how you don’t need a chain of creators. “Begotten not made.” While we humans are clearly not transcendent or immanent, most people don’t try to nail down what they believe as God into a little piece of reality, but as something more pervasive. Loving all everywhere and subtly encouraging all beings into doing their best at each moment.
Post reply on HN