EPTAs for using a church? Why not? "Superstitious people used to hang out here, OooOoOoooOOoOoo."
Use of Old Church Spaces - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Equity213
Canada873 Posts
As for using a church? Why not? "Superstitious people used to hang out here, OooOoOoooOOoOoo." | ||
|
althaz
Australia1001 Posts
There is likely no religious significance to anything in those photos to the owners, which makes it impossible for them to have done anything wrong. | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On April 18 2012 22:17 Twelve12 wrote: It's pretty ridiculous that people would care about this. Don't want your church space being used for another purpose? don't sell it. Don't want your holy icons being used for something else? Remove them before you sell it. The liberty at which the religious use the 'offended' tag is so crazy. Many of the beliefs of the religious are deeply deeply offensive to me. The idea that a large bunch of very good and kind people are going to be tortured for eternity is very offensive to me. The contribution of the catholic church to the spread of aids in africa is very offensive to me. Yet if someone buys my property and wants to turn it into a church i wouldn't complain because i sold them my property. I really don't see the problem here There was actually a branch of Christianity that broke off because they hated things like big fancy churches and statures and stuff. That branch was called Protestantism. It's only like, a large and dominant chunk of Christianity as a whole. You could even say that most Christians by decree of dogma dog really care what you do to big churches. Heck, the first time protestants got to rule a country (England) their first big act of religious power was to fuck the ever living shit out of big and small churches. So please don't assume that it is "Christianity" that is being offended by desecration of historical buildings. Protestants of the 14th century would LOVE what's being done to these churches and would be curious why it wasn't desecrated more. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45718 Posts
On April 18 2012 23:17 lorkac wrote: There was actually a branch of Christianity that broke off because they hated things like big fancy churches and statures and stuff. That branch was called Protestantism. It's only like, a large and dominant chunk of Christianity as a whole. You could even say that most Christians by decree of dogma dog really care what you do to big churches. Heck, the first time protestants got to rule a country (England) their first big act of religious power was to fuck the ever living shit out of big and small churches. So please don't assume that it is "Christianity" that is being offended by desecration of historical buildings. Protestants of the 14th century would LOVE what's being done to these churches and would be curious why it wasn't desecrated more. While the Protestants of the 14th century may not like fancy churches, my dad's a Protestant and I've been to his church plenty of times... and I can tell you that they're right up there with the Catholics (my mom's side) as far as not minding ornate, elaborate, huge monuments and scenes and the like o.O | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On April 18 2012 23:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: While the Protestants of the 14th century may not like fancy churches, my dad's a Protestant and I've been to his church plenty of times... and I can tell you that they're right up there with the Catholics (my mom's side) as far as not minding ornate, elaborate, huge monuments and scenes and the like o.O Yeah, its like, subgroups of an overall organized structure can't, in and of themselves, anecdotally represent the overall values of the whole. IE, being a devout Christian does not mean that you care about churches--but being a protestant doesn't also mean that you hate churches. It's like the people that are within organized religion have their own thoughts and beliefs that are built up based on their experiences and knowledge of the world and is not a dictated dogma by the church itself. Crazy I know. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
It really disturbs me how so many people run for government help every time they see behavior they don't agree with. You aren't entitled to anything except protection from harm and the basic means for survival. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On April 18 2012 23:17 lorkac wrote: There was actually a branch of Christianity that broke off because they hated things like big fancy churches and statures and stuff. That branch was called Protestantism. It's only like, a large and dominant chunk of Christianity as a whole. You could even say that most Christians by decree of dogma dog really care what you do to big churches. Heck, the first time protestants got to rule a country (England) their first big act of religious power was to fuck the ever living shit out of big and small churches. So please don't assume that it is "Christianity" that is being offended by desecration of historical buildings. Protestants of the 14th century would LOVE what's being done to these churches and would be curious why it wasn't desecrated more. This. If there is a central tenet common to the various Protestant denominations, it is that the only thing really holy is the Bible, and that the way to God is to read the Bible yourself and come to your own conclusions about the proper way to worship God (if you want to believe in and worship God). It is the Catholic Church that is all about the ceremony, the relics, the cathedrals, etc. Did you know that the fancy dress uniform of Catholic priests (not the simple black outfit with the white collar, the stuff the Pope wears) is identical to the uniform of Roman magistrates? The Catholic Church was and is in many ways a pale reflection of imperial Rome, that's where most of the problems Protestants had with Catholicism in the Reformation came from. | ||
|
FliedLice
Germany7494 Posts
On April 18 2012 23:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: While the Protestants of the 14th century may not like fancy churches, my dad's a Protestant and I've been to his church plenty of times... and I can tell you that they're right up there with the Catholics (my mom's side) as far as not minding ornate, elaborate, huge monuments and scenes and the like o.O Over here protestant churches tend to be way more "down to earth". More modern buildings, a big cross, maybe an altar in the front and that's pretty much it... from my own community i remember the walls being decorated with stuff the kids of the community made themself, drawings, pictures, whatever... nothing crazy | ||
|
rfoster
United States1005 Posts
On April 18 2012 22:54 Sermokala wrote: Actually when people get "offended" stuff does happen. its called the war on Christmas where everything has to be the holidays or its offending people. As well as moving nativity scenes that aren't hurting people and other atheists just being dicks about it. Don't be stupid just because Christians being offended doesn't matter anymore. Please don't derail the thread to things completely different subjects. This is not about the (manufactured) "war on Christmas" If you have an opinion about the churches please let us know but don't muck up the thread with completely random rambles about Christians vs atheist in the United States. | ||
|
Pantythief
Denmark657 Posts
On April 18 2012 22:04 fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi wrote: I beg your permission to pursue this line of thought to its extreme end. How would the general society, the catholics, the moralists, the immoralists, athiests, and humanity at lage feel if an old church is bought and reused as a prostitution house? Wow this is marvelous! It would seem that you don't know the difference between a pool-hall and a place where people pay for sex. You're sending a wrong message by turning an old, unused church into a place that essentially stands for everything religion isn't. Furthermore, seen from a marketing perspective, the idea is horrible and inconsiderable. In other words, it's an unrealistic comparison. In reality, you can't say that all "immoralists" or "atheists" share the same opinion. One atheist might say "hey, that's a good idea" and another might say "well, let's see what the Christians say about that" and a third might say "perhaps this is a bit disrespectful." | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
| ||
|
Pantythief
Denmark657 Posts
On April 19 2012 00:07 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Legally speaking I don't think they've done anything wrong. Are their intentions pure? Doubt it, but it's possible. Yeah, I bet they're planning on taking over the world. | ||
|
kerpal
United Kingdom2695 Posts
the building and symbols *should* mean nothing, so i don't think people should be required to respect them in any special manner. (although some are of value for architectural heritage etc and are rightly protected for those reasons, eg cathedrals here in england) having said that, some people do attach value to those buildings and i don't see why people couldn't manage to be sensitive to them. It's interesting that people are more sensitive to people the more aggressive they are. As someone said, you couldn't do this to a mosque, or in bible-belt america simply because you wouldn't want to have to cope with the backlash. I suppose what i'm getting at is that it saddens me that 'sensitivity' towards others seems to stem primarily from selfish fear of reprisal, as the logical result of that is that more violent or aggressive groups have their beliefs 'respected' more than peaceful communities. but as i say, i think that's a sad statement about humanity rather than something we should fix by legislating it. | ||
|
kerpal
United Kingdom2695 Posts
On April 18 2012 23:50 gogatorsfoster wrote: Please don't derail the thread to things completely different subjects. This is not about the (manufactured) "war on Christmas" If you have an opinion about the churches please let us know but don't muck up the thread with completely random rambles about Christians vs atheist in the United States. that strikes me as a counter example, rather than a derail. EDIT: to expand, he's making the point that in the case of someone (another religion or the secular world) being offended by the fact that our holidays are based around a christian tradition then society goes crazy to eradicate any semblance of religion from an official holiday (fair enough i guess..?) but if a christian were to get offended the assumption stated by AlphaWhale: On April 18 2012 22:40 AlphaWhale wrote: The thing is, when somebody is "offended", nothing happens. The almighty authority today is money, if you have the money and the deal follows legal guidelines then you can do what you want. I could be offended for an art gallery being bought out to become a chain store or something equally shallow but I'm not going to get sanctimonious about it. | ||
|
Th1rdEye
United States1074 Posts
Who cares | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On April 19 2012 00:11 Pantythief wrote: Yeah, I bet they're planning on taking over the world. Making straw man arguments don't make you look intelligent or discredit the point itself. Do you honestly think the intention of publicly mocking someone's religion is pure (serious question because you seem to think it's okay because of all the bad things "religion" has done)? Like I said, it's possible that it wasn't their intentions but I wouldn't bet on it. | ||
|
cmen15
United States1519 Posts
On April 18 2012 22:03 teddyoojo wrote: hahaha the only church id enter LOL feel that, yea they just buildings... | ||
|
Pantythief
Denmark657 Posts
On April 19 2012 00:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Making straw man arguments don't make you look intelligent or discredit the actual argument itself Do you honestly think the intention of publicly mocking someone's religion is pure? Like I said, it's possible they didn't have that in mind but I wouldn't bet on it. That wasn't an argument, that was me laughing at your comment. Sorry, but if you think that someone is "mocking" a religion by turning an old, unused church into a place for people where they can have fun, then you're not as smart as you'd like to think. Additionally, if you think that people turn churches into places of interest exclusively to "mock" a religion, you're an idiot. I think, and this is obviously my point of view, that it's a nice idea. The people who did it probably didn't have a pool-hall in town already, or perhaps they couldn't afford setting it up elsewhere. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On April 19 2012 00:27 Pantythief wrote: That wasn't an argument, that was me laughing at your comment. Sorry, but if you think that someone is "mocking" a religion by turning an old, unused church into a place for people to have fun, then you're not as smart as you'd like to think. Additionally, if you think that people turn churches into places of interest exclusively to "mock" a religion, you're an idiot. I think, and this is obviously my point of view, that it's a nice idea. The people who did it probably didn't have a pool-hall in town already, or perhaps they couldn't afford setting it up elsewhere. Another straw man. No, I don't think someone is mocking religion by making use of unused church spaces in any sort non-religious way. Try again. You're bound to stumble upon it eventually, assuming you're at least semi-competent. Try to think of a plausible reason for why someone might think it's mocking religion instead of a silly one, I know you can do it. If you're not sure, you should just ask for clarification. I didn't think it was complicated considering others have mentioned it in this thread as well but it's entirely possible you just skimmed the OP and skipped to the last page without bothering to read any of the longer comments. | ||
|
Son of Gnome
United States777 Posts
| ||
| ||
