EPTi dont know why people who were not involved in the purchase/sale of the church feel like they have a say in the terms/conditions of the sale. if the former church-owners didn't feel conditions were necessary then they weren't necessary. also, as many have pointed out, if you dont want them using your old crosses then remove them from the church before the sale.
Use of Old Church Spaces - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
i dont know why people who were not involved in the purchase/sale of the church feel like they have a say in the terms/conditions of the sale. if the former church-owners didn't feel conditions were necessary then they weren't necessary. also, as many have pointed out, if you dont want them using your old crosses then remove them from the church before the sale. | ||
|
mindsnare
Australia4 Posts
| ||
|
Deadeight
United Kingdom1629 Posts
On April 19 2012 05:50 sc2superfan101 wrote: 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. I wasn't very clear on what I meant by criticise, that's my fault, very poor choice of word. Anyone can criticise but no one has a right to stop them. | ||
|
DTrain
Australia64 Posts
http://www.pitcherandpiano.com/where-are-we/Nottingham I recon if people are not using the church anymore, then they may as well make use of the building for other things. | ||
|
Etrnity
United States88 Posts
On April 18 2012 21:30 fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi wrote: + Show Spoiler + I encountered an interesting discussion in the internet about someone buying an old church and convert it into a domicile. I have no disagreements about this as this is a wise and practical use of space. What made me step back a bit though was how they re-used the cross (by the looks of it, it seemed like the altar cross too). Here is the picture. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2RXFZ.jpg) In the discussion itself, the owner of the house posted more pictures of the house. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LAHB7h.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MjtQYh.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qiz1Nh.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gJLPTh.jpg) To be honest, I can't feel to bad, especially that the are gamers themselves like most of us here on TL, and they seem to thoroughly enjoy the place and make good use of it. Somewhere in the thread however, there is another post on church use in Netherlands. Here it is: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/CwOaG) Now, it is here I realized that the old curches are both not in the USA. It has been apparent that traditional Catholicism is losing its dominance, especially in Europe and this has resulted in empty churches, which some parishes are forced to sell. 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. Or better yet, remove them from sale such that only the structure is part of the new ownership. What do you think about this fellow TL members? Should there be guidelines on the reuse of old church spaces? And what is the best use of empty church spaces that could prove beneficial to the community. Keep in mind that most churches here in the US that get abandoned are usually purchased by another congregation. Since buildings are so expensive to start, a lot of congregations meet in school buildings and such like that, and then buy a church that has been moved out of due to the reduced cost of not having to build their own building. I'm fine with others buying the church, but I think that those that do not wish to make a new church should let the seller know so that religious symbols can be removed first. If they choose not to remove the symbols, that's then up to the discretion of the new owner, and I have no problem with them doing as they please. After all, it's not the cross that matters, but the meaning behind it. | ||
|
Prox
Netherlands174 Posts
It's very common to live in churches in Holland since many of them are not used and we have MANY. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QBqoq.jpg) | ||
|
OptimusYale
Korea (South)1005 Posts
I personally would love to buy it, do it up and stick the church back in there (I'm not religious, but its a historic church in my town (Dudley, England)). And seeing some of these pictures makes me kind of want to live in a church and just pimp it out...I bet the rates are great  | ||
|
felisconcolori
United States6168 Posts
The first old church structure - looks like it was a Presbyterian church (note the sign). It's not a Catholic church - which I could have told you to start with, as they would not leave behind a cross, or the pews. (Of course, it's possible the new owner brought those items in for the atmosphere.) However, the congregation sold the church building - and I can't tell (from the pictures) if it's one of the traditional designs, or if it's one of the newer "industrial/modern" structures - the difference being that one is obviously a church, the other could also pass as a grocery store, office, or convention space with a different sign. If the owner wants to be mindful of the worshippers that used to use the building - fine. If he doesn't - again, fine. The building isn't the sacred part of any faith, or at least, I don't think it should be. (Oh, sure, it could be sanctified and turned into holy ground through various rites, but they still don't carry weight without the people believing and practicing in the space.) And old churches can make for absolutely beautiful spaces to live in, regardless of any religious faith issue. In Gainesville, FL, (I think) there is an old church that was turned into a Melting Pot Fondue restaurant - it looked very good, I was disappointed I wasn't able to eat there while visiting. And in the US - there are absolutely scores of places like that - if for no other reason than the strip-mall church and church in movie theater movements. (Or the megachurches. Don't get me started.) I guess, what I'm saying is... TL;dr - it's not the building that is sacred, it's the people practicing their religion. Jesus wouldn't find this offensive. *ducks and runs* | ||
|
Roflhaxx
Korea (South)1244 Posts
On April 18 2012 22:01 Firebolt145 wrote: If you create a poll here on TL on whether people are offended or not, I daresay about 95% won't give a shit. That's because of the demographics of the forums, with most of us being rather young and international, exposed to atheism etc etc. However in the public there will be a lot of people that are older, stout Christians that will find this offensive. Should we just completely ignore them? Should we tell them to go take their bibles and shove it up their ass, claiming it's just a book from a printer? No. But that's sort of what they've done here. They've taken their wooden cross and turned it into a cue holder. It's just creating unnecessary drama. And for what purpose? Was there really no other land at all where they could've built this stuff instead? No other wood that they could've used to hold their cues? No where else they could play poker/computer games? Just do the smart thing and stay away from the silly and completely avoidable drama. edit: I suppose I should clarify that my exasperation at this story is not at the fact that they did this stuff, it's more that they decided to publicise it. That was the stupidest move imo. I agree, there isnt anything wrong with moving into a church and making it your own etc etc. Just that using crosses to hold cues etc is really unnecessary. Kind of like how I don't mind at all if people burn bibles or qur'ans but don't start spreading you doing it publicly it won't do anything good for anyone -_-. | ||
|
Jamial
Denmark1289 Posts
On April 20 2012 17:58 Etrnity wrote: Keep in mind that most churches here in the US that get abandoned are usually purchased by another congregation. Since buildings are so expensive to start, a lot of congregations meet in school buildings and such like that, and then buy a church that has been moved out of due to the reduced cost of not having to build their own building. I'm fine with others buying the church, but I think that those that do not wish to make a new church should let the seller know so that religious symbols can be removed first. If they choose not to remove the symbols, that's then up to the discretion of the new owner, and I have no problem with them doing as they please. After all, it's not the cross that matters, but the meaning behind it. In my oppinion you're viewing this sort of upside down. It shouldn't be up to the purchasers to tell the sellers what they're doing with what they bought. It should be up to the seller to either make demands (contracted demands), or simply remove items that they don't wish "desecrated". When I buy I coke, I don't need to tell the store how/if I drink it. This is absolutely no different. Also, as has been said before, if the church left the crosses behind, they clearly didn't care enough to begin with. On April 20 2012 18:45 felisconcolori wrote: ----SNIP----- I guess, what I'm saying is... TL;dr - it's not the building that is sacred, it's the people practicing their religion. Jesus wouldn't find this offensive. *ducks and runs* People practicing religion are sacred? What? | ||
|
Sinensis
United States2513 Posts
| ||
|
Joedaddy
United States1948 Posts
The word that is translated as "church" in the King James and other English versions of the Bible is from the Greek, ekklesia, which means "called-out people", or "assembly", as in a gathered body of people. The English word church actually comes from a later Greek word, kyriakon, by way of the English circe, or Scottish kirk, and means the Lord's, as in belonging to the Lord. Unfortunately, many try to equate the modern church building with the old temple under the Law of Moses, calling the church building "the house of the Lord". That being said, my personal belief is that while the physical cross itself is not holy, nor does it contain some mystical powers, it is a symbol of the sacrifice that God and his son Jesus made. As such, it should be treated with a certain amount of reverence. How the building is being used is irrelevant. Their disregard for the symbolic meaning of the cross is something that will have to be settled between them and God. Bottom line is that as a Christian I am not personally offended by any of it, but it does make me sad when so_so many people have such little regard for God and what the cross represents. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
| ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
On April 20 2012 20:02 Joedaddy wrote: Some interesting information on the Church as described in the Bible: That being said, my personal belief is that while the physical cross itself is not holy, nor does it contain some mystical powers, it is a symbol of the sacrifice that God and his son Jesus made. As such, it should be treated with a certain amount of reverence. How the building is being used is irrelevant. Their disregard for the symbolic meaning of the cross is something that will have to be settled between them and God. Bottom line is that as a Christian I am not personally offended by any of it, but it does make me sad when so_so many people have such little regard for God and what the cross represents. When do two pieces of wood become a cross? Why worship a false idol? Why regard something that doesn't affect them? | ||
|
Jongl0
631 Posts
| ||
|
Recognizable
Netherlands1552 Posts
That being said, my personal belief is that while the physical cross itself is not holy, nor does it contain some mystical powers, it is a symbol of the sacrifice that God and his son Jesus made. As such, it should be treated with a certain amount of reverence. How the building is being used is irrelevant. Their disregard for the symbolic meaning of the cross is something that will have to be settled between them and God. Bottom line is that as a Christian I am not personally offended by any of it, but it does make me sad when so_so many people have such little regard for God and what the cross represents. The only reason not to do something like this is because people get offended. ''Settle between them and god'' Complete arrogance, for a lot of people the cross means zero, nada, nothing. In a church with christian people it's a cross. Now it's just a piece of wood. | ||
|
fritfrat
United States50 Posts
On April 19 2012 01:53 masterbreti wrote: 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. It's disappointing to see so many replies focusing on what peoples rights are and that it's morally justifiable instead of just reflecting on how people can best be respecting and caring for each other. This post is more insightful than the rest put together, in my opinion! And as an off-note educational thing, we Catholics believe (essentially) the tabernacle/presence of Christ in a church makes it holy, and with that removed it would be like any Protestant view, which this one seemed to be anyways- it's just a building. | ||
|
-_-Quails
Australia796 Posts
On April 20 2012 21:17 Tobberoth wrote: Probably already been mentioned, but when churches are to not be used as churches any more, there is actually a religion process for removing the "holyness" from them, so you can't desecrate them because they have been reduced to normal buildings. The same is done before churches are demolished etc. According to Canon Law: "Canon 1212 Sacred places lose their dedication or blessing if they have been in great measure destroyed, or if they have been permanently made over to secular usage, whether by decree of the competent Ordinary or simply in fact." So a Catholic church is considered to lose its sanctity if it is destroyed or passes into secular usage, without any special ritual. | ||
|
Jinsho
United Kingdom3101 Posts
| ||
|
South
80 Posts
On April 20 2012 23:11 Recognizable wrote: The only reason not to do something like this is because people get offended. ''Settle between them and god'' Complete arrogance, for a lot of people the cross means zero, nada, nothing. In a church with christian people it's a cross. Now it's just a piece of wood. There's a matter of class and taste. It's undeniably in poor taste; if you can't see that, then you are socially inept. I'm not a religious person by any means, but it's disrespectful. Do I find it offensive? No. Incredibly childish, but not offensive. It seems clear that this generation has a great number of people that frankly don't give a shit about anyone but themselves. No respect for elders, no respect for other peoples' customs even though they may strongly disagree with them, etc. It will be interesting when one of today's jerks (there are plenty) that can't spare 2 seconds out of his life to help an elderly person or say thank you is suddenly 73 years old. I wonder what their perspective will be, especially on young people. Undoubtedly, their beliefs (or lack thereof) will have fallen out of favor and the new generation will disrespect them in some way. | ||
| ||
