EPTReally digging the idea of using those spaces. The skatepark place looks amazing
Use of Old Church Spaces - Page 5
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Szgk
Poland112 Posts
Really digging the idea of using those spaces. The skatepark place looks amazing | ||
|
abominare
United States1216 Posts
On April 18 2012 21:37 Firebolt145 wrote: You've messed up quite a few of your bbcodes. I couldn't help but laugh at the inappropriateness of this all. If you're going to build a place where you can play poker, pool, have a bit of a net cafe etc, don't pick a church. Then if you've got a church, don't improvise with their sacred items like the cross. Then after that, don't take photos of it publicising what you've done, turning it all into a mockery. Strictly speaking, they haven't done anything wrong. But the world isn't divided into right and wrong, and the combination of everything they've done is plain inconsiderate. I'm pretty sure this is going to instigate several complaints from stout Christians, and I don't blame them. It is such an avoidable situation that I believe that they deliberately did this to piss off people. I don't think there should be official guidelines on what you do with old church spaces, but fuck I wish people had respect/common sense/courtesy/manners/whatever you want to call it. Hopefully this won't disintegrate into another religion debate. :/ Indeed, I always make it a point to never photograph my house, I wouldn't want to insult the previous owners. Especially if they saw a female in the frame, they might deduce that sex might happen in their old house, and that would just be insulting to their potentially limited religious world view. This is of course why property rights are firmly in the hands of the previous owners and not the current owners. Additionally, we all know that abandoned property still so firmly belongs to the previous owners that no one can ever lay claim to it no matter how trivial. They've done nothing wrong, the only slightly blasphemous thing they've done in the photos is the pool cue cross, which to be fair stopped be sacred when the church folks couldnt be arsed to put it on the moving truck, probably because the new place came with much better metal crosses, I mean jesus cant just be seen on any old cross as king of kings. If anyone feels insulted then they are in a serious need to HTFU. | ||
|
Pantythief
Denmark657 Posts
On April 19 2012 00:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote: 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. Please don't use the term "straw man" if you don't know what it means. Try again? You said "Do you honestly think the intention of publicly mocking someone's religion is pure?" I don't understand what you're trying to say, you're extremely vague, also, I realize that you're upset, but could you please refrain from saying anything that implies I'm anything less than competent? Edit: 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. Please don't troll. | ||
|
Blasterion
China10272 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On April 19 2012 00:36 Pantythief wrote: Please don't use the term "straw man" if you don't know what it means. Try again? You said "Do you honestly think the intention of publicly mocking someone's religion is pure?" I don't understand what you're trying to say, you're extremely vague, also, I realize that you're upset, but could you please refrain from saying anything that implies I'm anything less than competent? Edit: Please don't troll. I'm well aware of what a straw man is. You've misrepresented my argument twice now by replacing it with absurd claims that I never made. In the future if someone is vague, you should try asking for clarification first before trying to guess what sort of "bad argument" they could have for disagreeing with you because you're not very good at it. I'm not upset with them at all, I thought my first post made it very clear that I thought they were fully within their rights to do what they did. It's a matter of consideration/manners in what they did. I acknowledged it was possible they just didn't consider it (which wouldn't be as bad, but is still inconsiderate), but I'm willing to bet that their intentions weren't as pure as that. Would you be kind enough to take your own advice as well and not say things that imply I'm an idiot (it's nice you bothered to edit most of those parts out at least)? Also, try not to accuse the other party of being a troll. | ||
|
Arnstein
Norway3381 Posts
| ||
|
DCLXVI
United States729 Posts
| ||
|
Pantythief
Denmark657 Posts
On April 19 2012 00:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote: I'm well aware of what a straw man is. You've misrepresented my argument twice now by replacing it with absurd claims that I never made. In the future if someone is vague, you should try asking for clarification first before trying to guess what sort of "bad argument" they could have for disagreeing with you because you're not very good at it. I'm not really upset with them, I thought my first post made it very clear that I thought they were fully within their rights to do what they did. Would you be kind enough to take your own advice as well and not say things that imply I'm an idiot? Whatever you say, my friend, I'm not so much interested in whether or not you want to think you know what a straw man is. I've not misrepresented any of your arguements, in fact, I've quoted you and I've told you, twice, that you're vague and that I cannot fully understand what you mean by quoted statements. About these so-called "claims", no, I've quoted you. You can't really escape that, I'm afraid. Last but not least, I'll gladly take my own advice, as I do, but I didn't imply anything, sir. I made a rethorical statement, and ultimately addressed you as an idiot. Would you be kind enough to take your own advice as well and not say things that imply I'm an idiot (it's nice you bothered to edit most of those parts out at least)? Also, try not to accuse the other party of being a troll. This confirms my suspicion. I didn't edit anything, so please don't lie. Anyway, you're either trolling or just stupid, and I'm done with you. Good day, buddy. | ||
|
NeonFox
2373 Posts
| ||
|
drag_
England425 Posts
| ||
|
fritfrat
United States50 Posts
A bigger moral question for me would be, if a church has a lot of iconography that cannot be removed, do you sell it and allow anyone to do anything with it, or do you just bulldoze it? I could see arguments either way, but for most cases, I think selling it would be just fine. | ||
|
Servius_Fulvius
United States947 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. A large chunk, yes. A dominant chunk? That may be a stretch. This is a fairly cynical and brash view of protestants. They didn't "break off" because they hated big fancy churches. The Reformation is exactly as the name implies - a call to "reform" a very corrupt central church. The pope himself recognizes this (albeit 5 centuries too late). Modern day Protestants are more like Catholics without the Tradition (capitol "T" Tradition, as it was taught to me in Catholic high school). In the last 50 years the Catholic church has seen a number of changes (no more latin mass, for instance), so it's not like Catholicism is sitting stagnant, either. As for the OP, it would seem that those who sell the church may be hoping that another church would buy it. Otherwise I can't see any reason why they would leave five foot crosses. While I don't think it's particularly respectful to turn a cross into a pool stick holder, if it's their property from the sale then they can technically do whatever they want to it. Personally I feel that the old owners should donate the religious materials to other churches. It seems like the idea of "desecrating" the items in the church is an expectation of some religious community members. They may expect that their items would be "respected" to their given standard. Obviously, if a new owner does not conform to those standards others may feel their item is disrespected and, therefore, desecrated. One can cling to the ideological hope that, if your religious item becomes the property of someone else that they would treat in a respectful way according to your standards (or donate it), but this is once again wishful thinking. To be honest, using a cross like that bothers me, but there's really nothing that can legally be done about it. Would it be nice if the property contract had a section that required owners to donate religious items they do not intend to use? Yes, but that doesn't seem legally feasible, especially given that property laws are secular. Instead, these pictures should serve as a warning to church-owners: if you sell your church property make sure you give away religious items or forfeit the right to complain when they're not treated the way you'd like by future owners. | ||
|
Grobyc
Canada18410 Posts
On April 18 2012 21:35 Salivanth wrote: Well, I'm not exactly the most unbiased individual, as I find the cross being used to hold pool cues hilarious. However. If the church is really concerned about the inappropriate use of their sacred items, they should remove them before selling the place. If they leave them behind, they clearly don't care too much. This pretty much sums it up. It's not the churches anymore, and there shouldn't be any special guidelines for churches. Just another building. The way the cross used is pretty hilarious though haha. | ||
|
kerpal
United Kingdom2695 Posts
On April 19 2012 01:13 Grobyc wrote: This pretty much sums it up. It's not the churches anymore, and there shouldn't be any special guidelines for churches. Just another building. The way the cross used is pretty hilarious though haha. if i was gonna live in a converted building that had previously been used by a church i would probably do the same (i'm christian). You can't hide the fact that it was a church, might as well own it. a whole bunch of old churches in the UK are now nightclubs, often with names like 'vice' or 'sinful' or something punny like that. | ||
|
UmiNotsuki
United States633 Posts
| ||
|
rfoster
United States1005 Posts
On April 19 2012 00:17 kerpal wrote: 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: I was writing about how I agreed with you but I did not think that was what he wanted to say. But the more I read it the more I understand what you are saying. I still disagree with him though(even if it isn't a derail.). I think that when you are offended it doesn't matter. Nobody else cares unless you are being racially or sexually discriminated against. The war on Christmas isn't a real thing. Its the most widely celebrated holiday in America by far. I don't think someone saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas is important to anybody in the world besides the 24 hour news networks (-_-). Also Nativity scenes are not removed except for when they are paid for by taxpayers, which should happen since there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. The point of disproving the "War on Christmas" was to display that no it does not matter to anybody else if you are offended by something, Christian or not.(Or at least it should not) | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
Good thing they seem to be outnumberd. Religious people need to get over the fact that, whilst their book might say they are special, they are in fact not priviliged to special rules. Good thing that organized religion is dying out, but I fear we haven't seen the last of its filthy tentacles, growing more desperate with each passing day. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
kerpal
United Kingdom2695 Posts
On April 19 2012 01:25 gogatorsfoster wrote: I was writing about how I agreed with you but I did not think that was what he wanted to say. But the more I read it the more I understand what you are saying. I still disagree with him though(even if it isn't a derail.). I think that when you are offended it doesn't matter. Nobody else cares unless you are being racially or sexually discriminated against. The war on Christmas isn't a real thing. Its the most widely celebrated holiday in America by far. I don't think someone saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas is important to anybody in the world besides the 24 hour news networks (-_-). Also Nativity scenes are not removed except for when they are paid for by taxpayers, which should happen since there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. The point of disproving the "War on Christmas" was to display that no it does not matter to anybody else if you are offended by something, Christian or not.(Or at least it should not) honestly i have very little opinion on the 'war on christmas' (which is a phrase i've not heard before, so i assume it's more of a talking point in the states?) i just thought you were being a bit rude dismissing his argument as a derail, thanks for being clearheaded about it.  | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
| ||
|
teddyoojo
Germany22369 Posts
On April 18 2012 22:36 Mikau wrote: What's wrong with supply and demand in this sense? If there's not enough christians to make use of the church, why not make sure the building doesn't go to waste? I'd say changing it into a mosque is actually better since it keeps the building being used as a place of faith. This coming from an atheist btw soooo and why would we want "places of faith" id say do whatever u want with the church its just a building. | ||
| ||
