EPTUse of Old Church Spaces - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Focuspants
Canada780 Posts
| ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
Can't think of a good reason a christian would be against it. | ||
|
Demonhunter04
1530 Posts
On April 18 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote: There is nothing wrong with desecrating crosses. It's not illegal. And it's not real. The cross is right there, being used to hold pool cues. Are you implying that it's photoshopped?  | ||
|
fallenknight
Canada19 Posts
I dont see the harm in this as long as this wasnt done in order to offend but just to make good use of the place but still... | ||
|
Warlock40
601 Posts
On April 19 2012 03:31 fallenknight wrote: did anyone else think ,aside from me, of the time in Jesus Christ Superstar (movie) where jesus goes into the temple and sees it being used as a market place and starts flipping tables literally while driving everyone out of the place? The main source is the Bible, actually, Matthew 21:12 for one. But I'm just nitpicking. In all fairness, they can do whatever they want, it's their property. They could turn it into a place of worship for a devil worshiping cult. It's up to the church group who sold it to ensure that all of their relics and icons are removed before they sell it. On another note, this reminds me of the old church in the movie 21 Jump Street (which was also in the TV series). They had some laughs about it but weren't really offensive at all, which was nice for once. | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
| ||
|
MichaelDonovan
United States1453 Posts
| ||
|
huStl.e
United Kingdom104 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. :/ The church don't own the property anymore and seem to have left these items behind? Im sure if a wee weary willie priest turned up and asked for the cross they would oblige (maybe the would request a new cue holder as part of the trade? i dunno). But at the end of they day, that is no longer a "sacred" place it only resembles a place that people once held sacred. ::: potentially offensive personal opinion in the spoilers, you have been warned if your hurt by it and want to complain i've taken all the effort to protect you from it. Complain I come through the intertubes and punch you in your respective genitalia::: + Show Spoiler + Personally i think we should do this to more churces, mosques, synnagogues whatever. better use than what they are now. | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
| ||
|
Percutio
United States1672 Posts
| ||
|
v3chr0
United States856 Posts
He's reusing wasted/empty space, that is no longer owned. If anybody were to NOT have a problem with this, I think it would be Jesus, reusing space dedicated to him for someone to live, that actually pays taxes too? That seems fine IMO, and should be done more often with abandoned religious structures. | ||
|
kerpal
United Kingdom2695 Posts
On April 19 2012 04:49 lorkac wrote: Hypothetically--if someone bought the bodlien library in Oxford and began burning the books to cook his meals with--should we be okay with it because it's his property anyway? ::: potentially offensive personal opinion in the spoilers, you have been warned if your hurt by it and want to complain i've taken all the effort to protect you from it. Complain I come through the intertubes and punch you in your respective genitalia::: + Show Spoiler + Personally i think we should do this to more libraries, schools, universities whatever. better use than what they are now. + Show Spoiler + i'm in the middle of writing my final year research project | ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On April 19 2012 04:49 lorkac wrote: Hypothetically--if someone bought the bodlien library in Oxford and began burning the books to cook his meals with--should we be okay with it because it's his property anyway? Sure, because obviously Oxford didn't think the books important enough to save. | ||
|
ClanRH.TV
United States462 Posts
On April 18 2012 22:05 Derez wrote: Paradiso in the Netherlands. Now a concert venue, used to be a church. I personally think churches make for excellent nightclubs. The skatepark in Arnhem is nice too. This is a cool, yet sort of eerie, use for a church. | ||
|
kerpal
United Kingdom2695 Posts
On April 19 2012 05:04 Myles wrote: Sure, because obviously Oxford didn't think the books important enough to save. to play the hypothetical devil's advocate in this hypothetically parallel hypothetical arguement - isn't the knowledge contained within them the property of more than just whoever owns the books and library? also, what if this were an art gallery? i remember there was a discussion about one artist who (as an exhibition) destroyed all of his posessions, including works of art he had purchased from other artists. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
however, it's not the end of the world. i would rather they keep it how it is for now, so that they can see it with the things they have put on it, and see the weight of sin hanging upon it. perhaps one day it will grow uncomfortable for them and they will take it down and then they will have truly learned something. perhaps they won't. i can only hope that people who see it don't let emotions rule them and instead let their pity show. this reminds me of piss cross. both were very ironic pieces of art, especially when you consider the words of the Christ. those who reside in sin, which is all of us at one point or another, will always be drawn to the profane and will always wish to establish a profanity over that which is sacred. however, the cross is not necessarily sacred, but simply represents that which is sacred. as such the goal of profaning the cross is impossible. the cross has already been cleansed by the blood of the one who was on it, no profanity could touch it. attempting to profane it simply illuminates the rest of us as to the profanity within one's own soul. 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. the idea behind it is that the cross WAS the "incredible feat that he did". the cross is his throne, and his crown is a crown of thorns. and i don't think you're supposed to find the cross to be depressing. but yeah, i think the idea behind it all is that all of his prior miracles (healing sick, lame, blind) were all just signs of the coming resurrection. to show one of the signs as the symbol instead of the purpose would seem kind of out of place. there is a very interesting discussion about the church by Bishop Fulton Sheen, I believe, where he discusses Christianity without the cross, and Christianity without the Christ on the cross, and how the two extremes are both equally heretical and equally dangerous. | ||
|
Deadeight
United Kingdom1629 Posts
Quite simply, if the church didn't want them to make an awesome pool cue stand out of the cross then they shouldn't have sold it. I wouldn't think twice about using a statue of Zeus with his hand out holding my pool cue, and I think some people would do well to realise that for many people this is no different if you don't believe in God. Its their item in their house, I don't think anyone has any legitimate grounds to criticise it. | ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
On April 19 2012 04:49 lorkac wrote: Hypothetically--if someone bought the bodlien library in Oxford and began burning the books to cook his meals with--should we be okay with it because it's his property anyway? A wooden cross is not a library of books: the comparison is inappropriate. | ||
|
DuckS
United States845 Posts
| ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On April 19 2012 05:43 Deadeight wrote: I wouldn't think twice about using a statue of Zeus with his hand out holding my pool cue, and I think some people would do well to realise that for many people this is no different if you don't believe in God. Its their item in their house, I don't think anyone has any legitimate grounds to criticise it. of course they have legitimate grounds to criticize it. any time you make a statement, which is what they did by putting the pool cues on the cross and then making that public, you open yourself to criticism. you can disagree with the criticism, but that doesn't mean that the criticism isn't valid. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2RXFZ.jpg)
