|
On April 19 2012 01:31 zalz wrote:
Scary church people demanding control over property that is no longer theirs.
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.
is.... is anyone in this thread saying that? i must have missed it. seriously, did any christian
1. demand control of old churches
2. claim to be subject to special rules
or
3. do anything else to warrant you describing their continued existance as 'filthy tentacles'
|
A church is also just a building and thinking that it is holy ground because people build this place to worship their gods...
Well, maybe I'm a bit too harsh on this topic but I don't care if they use a cross as a cue stand or sleep on the former altar.
And the cross doesn't seem that important when it's left behind. So why not make the best out of it?
To sum up, churches are also just buildings. Use/modify/destroy them as you like if nobody needs them anymore.
|
There was a situation here where an old church was purchased as it became totally desolate after the demographics shifted over the years, it was then turned into a night club and well... Drugs happened.
|
On April 19 2012 01:45 Disregard wrote:
There was a situation here where an old church was purchased as it became totally desolate after the demographics shifted over the years, it was then turned into a night club and well... Drugs happened.
our church recently re-bought a building that had been sold and was empty. the first step in renovating was hiring a professional waste disposal company to remove all the needles that had been found on site.
drugs happen.
|
think as long as they are at least being a bit respectful of the artifacts that are left in the church, then I don't see any reason why the chuch should try to impose any rules on anyone.
The cross thing I think was borderline, a cross is just wood after all, but I think to some it might offend. Personally if I were in the position, I would just give it to another church and have them use it as they see fit. Its not my religious object, but I should at least respect that its someone's else's.
I think respect is the big thing here. On both sides. The church needs to respect that this is not their property anymore, and the people living there need to respect that it once was a church, and any objects left in their that may hold some religious value should be given to the right people instead of turned into cue holders.
Respect is someone this world lacks a lot of , respect for fellow man, respect for one's religious beliefs, respect for ones property, respect for others emotions. We need a lot more respect in this world. I think thats not a hard thing to ask from both sides.
|
On April 19 2012 00:44 Arnstein wrote:
Why would anyone care what a building is used for as long as it's not something illegal?
I suppose some people could feel that if a church (a supposedly sacred place) was turned into a not-so-respectable place in general, they would be irked by the change and feel that their grounds were desecrated.
...Even though it's no longer a church and it's a brand new place and it's completely legal and all that jazz. ::shrugs:: I suppose that's what some very religious people may think though. Not an opinion of mine.
|
I really wouldn't have cared if they'd turned the church into a strip bar, as long as they followed the laws in the region.
If they bought the property, it's theirs to use as they see fit. No more different than turning acquired pagan Indian grounds into malls, or turning shopping centers into mosques.
|
On April 19 2012 00:47 Pantythief wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 00:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On April 19 2012 00:36 Pantythief wrote:On April 19 2012 00:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On April 19 2012 00:27 Pantythief wrote:On April 19 2012 00:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On April 19 2012 00:11 Pantythief wrote: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. 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 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. 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? 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. Show nested quote +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.
If I'm vague and you guess at what I actually meant, and it turns out to be a wrong guess, you're misrepresenting my arguments. When that guess also happens to represent my arguments as stupider than what they actually are, especially after I've explained, that's a straw man. If someone's being vague and you're unsure what their position is, ask for clarification, don't just assume it's the weakest possible position. You've pretty much turned the principle of charity upside down on it's head.
|
On April 19 2012 01:31 zalz wrote:
Scary church people demanding control over property that is no longer theirs.
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.
Damn Zalz, I'm no big fan of religion myself but.... what? You're just making shit up here.
|
On April 19 2012 02:22 solidbebe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 01:31 zalz wrote:
Scary church people demanding control over property that is no longer theirs.
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. Damn Zalz, I'm no big fan of religion myself but.... what? You're just making shit up here.
To quote the OP: But I believe that in the event of reuse of these former church spaces, there has to be some agreement between the church and the new owners not to deviate or at least desecrate
the items in the space, like the cross.
So the first comment is legit. The thread doesn't like that, so the second comment is legit too. Religious people flip shit when you question "faith" and all it's silliness, so the third is legit too. And religion is dying, but will not do so quietly (look at the States) so all in all I think it was a fair post. If you think he is making shit up then tell us WHAT he is making up. Accusations of lying are not trivial, and unsupported ones are useless and borderline trolling.
|
Hello ladies and gentleman! Kind of a religious nut and a youth group teacher at my church, I was hoping to...enlighten (doesn't feel like the right word.. haha anyways) about a church.
In the bible it states that a church isn't a certain place, its a group of people. Its where more than two people meet to praise and glorify God. A church isn't defined by the location, but rather the people who is part of the church. Maybe in the past a church was a glorified, sanctified place, but that's only cause the location had significance with it. It was a place where high priests or prophets could talk to God directly, but presently there are probably very little people who would be able to accomplish such a feat. To restate a church is the people, not the location.
Secondly, the use of the cross is... its kind of desecrating the significance of it, but a cross is just a cross. To us christians, it was a symbol of the pain and sacrifice Christ did for us, but for others its just a piece of wood. To be honest, I dont even know why christians use this to represent christianity, to see how much pain he went through for us? Why does it have to be so depressing? Why couldn't it have been some incredible feat that he did, or a crown, or something. I dont want to be reminded of such a depressing event, but yeah that's my problem.
But seriously, anybody want to (takes off sunglasses) walk across the sea? YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, give me a high five! Anybody? Anybody? no? okay fine, i'll show myself out.
|
I'm just happy churches are closing, a win for free thinkers everywhere.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 19 2012 02:28 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 02:22 solidbebe wrote:On April 19 2012 01:31 zalz wrote:
Scary church people demanding control over property that is no longer theirs.
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. Damn Zalz, I'm no big fan of religion myself but.... what? You're just making shit up here. To quote the OP: Show nested quote +But I believe that in the event of reuse of these former church spaces, there has to be some agreement between the church and the new owners not to deviate or at least desecrate
the items in the space, like the cross. So the first comment is legit. The thread doesn't like that, so the second comment is legit too. Religious people flip shit when you question "faith" and all it's silliness, so the third is legit too. And religion is dying, but will not do so quietly (look at the States) so all in all I think it was a fair post. If you think he is making shit up then tell us WHAT he is making up. Accusations of lying are not trivial, and unsupported ones are useless and borderline trolling.
even the OP isn't 'demanding' control. In the context i understood it to be a suggestion that if people were selling a church they should include an agreement about how it is used. zalz has taken that to be a demand by christians to be able to police it.
if the OP is outraged, he's outraged at the church for allowing it.
OP feel free to correct me if i'm wrong, that's just how i understood it.
EDIT: lol. what a lame 1000th post!
|
Nothing wrong with this. Nothing wrong for the christians, because it's explicitly stated in the bible that you shouldn't worship idols - therefore even a cross should have no significance to a true christian.
Nothing wrong for anyone else because nobody should be forced to respect unsubstantiated, ridiculous claims. Plus when people bought the place, it's theirs. It's no longer the previous owners or anyone elses business unless it breaks the law.
|
On April 19 2012 02:28 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 02:22 solidbebe wrote:On April 19 2012 01:31 zalz wrote:
Scary church people demanding control over property that is no longer theirs.
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. Damn Zalz, I'm no big fan of religion myself but.... what? You're just making shit up here. To quote the OP: Show nested quote +But I believe that in the event of reuse of these former church spaces, there has to be some agreement between the church and the new owners not to deviate or at least desecrate
the items in the space, like the cross. So the first comment is legit. The thread doesn't like that, so the second comment is legit too. Religious people flip shit when you question "faith" and all it's silliness, so the third is legit too. And religion is dying, but will not do so quietly (look at the States) so all in all I think it was a fair post. If you think he is making shit up then tell us WHAT he is making up. Accusations of lying are not trivial, and unsupported ones are useless and borderline trolling.
Borderline trolling what?
He's saying scary church people demanding control over property that is no longer theirs. This is not the case. The OP believes there should be some agreement between the religious former owners of the church and the new owners. There is no demanding being done anywhere and it certainly isn't being done by the people who formerly owned the church. ( it's merely the OP's opinion.)
The second one is kinda debatable. Since while they aren't prililiged to special rules, I don't think rules come into play here. The religious people making an agreement with the new owners of the property to not 'desecrate' their whatever, is not subject to any rules. It's just 2 parties making an agreement, like anyone can do. No one is saying they're the only ones who can do that.
|
Also note that people who say they're offended by this do so also as a power-grab. If their concerns are being shown as somehow valid by society, then they become representative of Christianity. Instead, ignore them and listen to Christians that say they don't think this is a big deal.
|
Being married to a pastor, and living in a church, I would say it isn't a big deal. Who cares: let it offend the people it offends, they've got their priorities in the wrong order if it does.
|
All items of the church sacred to the church should be removed. If the people who bought the church aren't bound by any ethical standards of said religion it is beyond stupid to expect them to take any special considerations.
Posting that picture online is probably a dick move to some people but hey its the internet.
|
I'm a religious person but still very open to ideas and I can laugh to anything so I don't lack sense of humor. I think that the most sacred items, cross etc should not be sold with the church or if they are, it should be ensured that they aren't used in this kind of way. But if the church owners don't care then it can't be helped since not everyone shares these values.
|
It's a dick move to do it and post it on the Internet. You may not share their belief but does that automatically mean it doesn't deserve some respect? Anyway, they are free to be an asshole if they want to be, it was technically their property.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
