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).
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:
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.
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.
On April 18 2012 21:30 fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi wrote: 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).
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:
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.
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. :/
Unless that cross was hand crafted by Jesus himself then it's just a piece of wood. Those things are mass produced in factories by people who don't even believe in a religion that uses them. I see no issue at all with using it in that fashion. Would you rather it be burned or thrown away? Because that seems wasteful.
Obviously the owner of the church didn't feel it was very important, either. In the end, regardless of how decorative and detailed it may be, a church is nothing more than a building and any religious value to it (aside from some really old, really famous churches) is in your head and not the building itself. Turning a church into a skate park is no different than buying an old grocery store and doing the same thing.
Props to these guys for being resourceful and efficient.
Serejai, if that's the way you put it, then nothing is ever sacred, not even the Bible, or the word of God because no one can prove that Jesus or God uttered/made them himself.
But let us please focus on the topic - use of church space. I agree the church should have taken the initiative and removed these things, especially that they are not attached to the structure.
As a Christian, I don't see a problem. It isn't like the churches or the cross are inherently holy - as some would say, its the people that make the church. Maybe if it was a graveyard or some such then it be an issue, but otherwise its just a building where people used to worship God.
Only reason I can see to stop this is preserving historical buildings.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
It is a piece of wood. Your God cares not for such silly bullshit. You insult him by caring.
On April 18 2012 21:49 LAN-f34r wrote: As a Christian, I don't see a problem. It isn't like the churches or the cross are inherently holy - as some would say, its the people that make the church. Maybe if it was a graveyard or some such then it be an issue, but otherwise its just a building where people used to worship God.
Only reason I can see to stop this is preserving historical buildings.
Pretty much this. I actually laughed when I saw the cross being used for pool queues. I think that's awesome.
If we're putting so much faith in the symbols that we can't bear to see them used for pragmatic purposes by people in their own homes, I think perhaps we need to take a step back and remember that a cross on the wall of a church is just a piece of wood meant to point the congregation to Christ. It's nothing special in itself, at all.
Also I'm not sure how long I'd give this thread to survive.
EDIT: also this:
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.
if the congregation is confused enough to consider their local bits and pieces sacred, they should take them with them.
On April 18 2012 21:49 LAN-f34r wrote: As a Christian, I don't see a problem. It isn't like the churches or the cross are inherently holy - as some would say, its the people that make the church. Maybe if it was a graveyard or some such then it be an issue, but otherwise its just a building where people used to worship God.
Only reason I can see to stop this is preserving historical buildings.
I agree. I even find the way they made it into a cozy lan party space awesome. My contention really has more to do with the church authorities. They should have taken the initiative to protect these things. I am not so sure how the Netherland church thing happened though? Is it something that church authorities are not aware of?
Also, if you know of other cases where church being reused, please post them here. I am interested that churches are actually converted for other uses.
I think that the idea of guidelines for "old churches" is a bit ridiculous. As soon as these guys bought the place, it stopped being a church and became a church-shaped house instead. It's their house and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to use whichever object they want to hang their pool cues on.
It took me a min to even find the cross in any of these pictures lol. It would have been way funnier if Jesus was nailed to it and holding a pool cue in each hand. I grew up Catholic and nothing in these pictures offends me. If anything, by preserving some of its church-like qualities they are giving its history due respect.
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.
The dutch thing is in co-operation with the religious people there, who moved to a different location years ago leaving this abandoned. This was just one of twelve churches by that parochy that were empty and I for one am glad they managed to turn it into something with purpose.
On April 18 2012 21:58 vGl-CoW wrote: I think that the idea of guidelines for "old churches" is a bit ridiculous. As soon as these guys bought the place, it stopped being a church and became a church-shaped house instead. It's their house and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to use whichever object they want to hang their pool cues on.
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?
On April 18 2012 21:58 Zandar wrote: You can do pretty cool things with light projection and a church
If you find it "morally wrong" to use the cross in this way, would you also find it morally wrong if the same situation happened with a giant wooden fork from a church of Pastafarianism used as a coat hanger? (assume the fork is equivelent to a cross)
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.
That's crazy though. It was a church, now it's their house. As a Christian, I find nothing offensive in them using the stuff the congregation was careless enough to leave behind when they vacated.
If they took a Jesus-on-cross effigy and set it on fire then stuck what was left on the outside wall with a pentagram painted around it, sure, then they're going out of their way to be offensive and that's something worth addressing, but nobody in their right minds is going to be up in arms about that pool queue.
If you're going to make judgements based on the most out-there group of easily offended Christians, you pretty much have to make it illegal to live in old churches. Just about everything could be construed as blasphemy if you're over-zealous and still consider the building a place of worship. What if someone puts a bed in the vestry, and then later has sex in it? My word.
This is pretty cool, though I find it absurd to suggest that any owner of a new property - regardless of what it's previous use may have been, should have any obligation to do as asked by the former owner in respect to preserving any aspect of it in any way (though I respect the fact if they agree when buying to not modify it in certain ways they are most probably bound not to). The owner is free to do as they wish with it by virtue of the fact they are they owner (within the legal bounds of the land in which the property sits).
They bought a church that didn't remove any items while selling the house so instead of them just throwing the cross in the street they decided to have it watch over them while they are playing pool. I think if people consider the cross a sacred item then they should have taken it themselves or be happy it wasn't thrown in the trash.
It wasn't destroyed, it looks like you can still remove the pool cues and put it back up on the wall, they didn't drop it on someones front lawn and catch it on fire. Their choice on how to use it works, specially if there are vampires you need to kill with holy cues.
On April 18 2012 21:58 vGl-CoW wrote: I think that the idea of guidelines for "old churches" is a bit ridiculous. As soon as these guys bought the place, it stopped being a church and became a church-shaped house instead. It's their house and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to use whichever object they want to hang their pool cues on.
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?
Prostitution is illegal in most countries and I don't think costumers would be confortable with looking and paying for whores in a place that used to be a church (and may still remind them of one). Heavy conscience and all that.
I don't see a problem with this. When the church is sold and its use is no longer for religious gatherings, the new owners can do whatever they please with it... just like any other building or residency. Just abide by the same normal rules and laws. Just because it used to be a church doesn't make it more special than if it used to be a funeral home, a fire station, an apartment complex, a library, or a brothel.
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
Legally, once the chuch has already sold the real estate, it is beyond their control already. Agree with firebolt though, publishing it was distasteful. For one, they could have used other wood as cur rack. Second, publishing it was like an open aggression to Catholics who will be offended by it.
If you don't want your church to turn into something you might not like, then don't sell it. If not enough people care enough to keep the church operational, then it clearly didn't mean enough to those people. Once the cross is abandoned in the building, it becomes just another piece of wood. Once the building is abandoned by it's believers, it becomes just another building with some odd architecture. Even with the bible, once it is abandoned by its believers, it becomes just another stack of paper with binding.
I see nothing wrong with what those guys did. I'd bet they thought their new house was pretty cool and that's why they took the pictures and tossed them on the internet. I don't think they were purposely going out of their way to be dicks.
On April 18 2012 22:08 zbedlam wrote: I like their setup. Kinda jealous tbh.
Honestly me too. That is a pimpy lan party they got!
On April 18 2012 22:06 Notcake wrote: If you find it "morally wrong" to use the cross in this way, would you also find it morally wrong if the same situation happened with a giant wooden fork from a church of Pastafarianism used as a coat hanger? (assume the fork is equivelent to a cross)
LOLOL. Someone took the trouble of registering a new account just to say this. And, is Catholicism = Pastafarianism in scope, gravity, influence, etc? Don't look at me, I'm an athiest.
1 : If you don't want your church being turned into anything that is not a church ( a house for instance, or a brothel for all i care ) then don't sell it in the first place
2 : When you sell a house / flat / church, you take all the furnitures you don't want to keep, you don't leave them there and then act like you're offended if the new owner dumps your old furnitures that you didn't bother taking.
3 : As for the value of the church and the things that may have been left inside of it well first off it's not a church anymore. IT USED TO BE A CHURCH, now it's someone's house. Either the church has some cultural value ( historical monument for instance, let's say it's gothic ) and then yeah you might get really pissed that someone makes it a house, but if it does have a cultural value then you don't freaking sell it in the first place right ? And lastly, the cross is just a piece of wood. There is no copyright on "T"-shaped things, and anything T-shaped isn't sacred.
My first reaction to the cross as a cue rack was "Oh shit, probably shouldn't have done that."
Then I remembered to throw aside the ultra-conservative Baptist flavor of Christianity I was brought up with in the "Bible Belt" of the United States and put on my "Reasonable Human Being and Christian" clothes.
Then I lol'd.
As a Christian, I'm glad that these people found a use for a church once the parish moved on with their worship. Instead of the church decaying and simply being another condemned, useless former-house of worship, someone has made it a home. A true place of happiness, fun, and good times.
If Jesus stood for anything, he stood for having fun with your fellow human beings. He most definitely didn't stand for tip-toeing around religious conservatives who might have a problem with your living a responsible life that just happened to go against their beliefs.
In short, my Jesus would probably give them a high-five and a fist bump when they get to Heaven. Then again, my Jesus is also going to say something along the lines of "Yo motherfucker, how've you been? Oh, wait, nevermind. Already know. Trolololol," when I get there. So, you know, probably coming at you on a different wavelength.
EDIT:
On April 18 2012 22:26 frontliner2 wrote: In the Netherlands all Churches that get closed due to less and less Christianity all become changed to Mosques.
On April 18 2012 22:24 Marti wrote: My first thoughts upon seeing this :
1 : If you don't want your church being turned into anything that is not a church ( a house for instance, or a brothel for all i care ) then don't sell it in the first place
2 : When you sell a house / flat / church, you take all the furnitures you don't want to keep, you don't leave them there and then act like you're offended if the new owner dumps your old furnitures that you didn't bother taking.
3 : As for the value of the church and the things that may have been left inside of it well first off it's not a church anymore. IT USED TO BE A CHURCH, now it's someone's house. Either the church has some cultural value ( historical monument for instance, let's say it's gothic ) and then yeah you might get really pissed that someone makes it a house, but if it does have a cultural value then you don't freaking sell it in the first place right ? And lastly, the cross is just a piece of wood. There is no copyright on "T"-shaped things, and anything T-shaped isn't sacred.
As Mr. Cross famously says: I pity the fool who don't quit his jibba jabba and turns churches into houses!
On April 18 2012 22:26 frontliner2 wrote: In the Netherlands all Churches that get closed due to less and less Christianity all become changed to Mosques.
Its a really awesome use of space in my opinion. Much better than demolishing the building and building on top of it. I dont think that the church should leave behind religious things. They should just sell the building and the land plot. Its not really important to me as I`m not really religious myself, but I could see how some people would be offended by desecration of religious objects, but I see no problem with selling the building itself.
If the church did not remove the item before selling it, in this case the cross, then they probably either forgot about it, or did not want to remove it for whatever reason. As a result the new owners should be able to do what they please with it. What may be a religious symbol to some, is nothing but an object to others. Forcing people to recognize its significance as a religious symbol, I can understand, but forcing people to having to respect it is another issue. If the church decides to sell the land and whats on it, then they give up any religious attachments to that land in my opinion. What these people did is justified, and honestly I'm a bit envious of their cool house set-up.
On April 18 2012 22:04 fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi wrote:
On April 18 2012 21:58 vGl-CoW wrote: I think that the idea of guidelines for "old churches" is a bit ridiculous. As soon as these guys bought the place, it stopped being a church and became a church-shaped house instead. It's their house and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to use whichever object they want to hang their pool cues on.
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?
Prostitution is illegal in most countries and I don't think costumers would be confortable with looking and paying for whores in a place that used to be a church (and may still remind them of one). Heavy conscience and all that.
What about is places where prostitution is legal, say Amsterdam. Would that make a difference?
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
I was just going to post that I'd use a church to store my pornography, dead hookers and gambling equipment, while putting a gay nightclub in the cellar. But you put it much more eloquently than I would have done... :D
On April 18 2012 22:31 archonOOid wrote: The churches has always been empty, from my perspective. Why not fill them with a joyful activity or any other activity for that matter?
That's deep. In what sense are they empty? Maybe not most catholic churchgoers think of jumping up and down and screaming halleluja as a way of celebrating mass.
On April 18 2012 21:58 vGl-CoW wrote: I think that the idea of guidelines for "old churches" is a bit ridiculous. As soon as these guys bought the place, it stopped being a church and became a church-shaped house instead. It's their house and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to use whichever object they want to hang their pool cues on.
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?
I can imagine some religious people would be offended by reusing an old church as a prostitution house, which would be understandable, but I don't think it would be reasonable. As far as I'm concerned, the building stopped being a church as soon as it was sold. It is now a house that happens to be shaped like a church.
If I personally owned an old church building, would I think it a good idea to turn it into a prostitution house? Probably not, but only out of pragmatic concerns, because I'd have to deal with a bunch of complaints, even though I feel they're being unreasonable.
(FWIW, this issue depends a lot on the cultural context. If I turned an old church building into a prostitution house here in Belgium, it might make the local newspapers, but I'm pretty sure there would be virtually no outrage at all. If I tried the same thing in say, the US Bible Belt, I wouldn't be too surprised to find my building torched to the ground.)
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
...really dude?
If you actually read the thread, you'll find that pretty much every poster who's identified as a christian has said they're fine with it, bar one or two who seem to have minor reservations. It's obvious that you had a rant to get off your chest and this was a convenient excuse, but... really?
These kinds of posts are why any thread that so much as mentioned the R word gets closed asap, despite 99% of people trying to have a reasonable discussion.
On April 18 2012 22:26 frontliner2 wrote: In the Netherlands all Churches that get closed due to less and less Christianity all become changed to Mosques.
Isn't it awesome?
( :S )
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.
On April 18 2012 22:04 fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi wrote:
On April 18 2012 21:58 vGl-CoW wrote: I think that the idea of guidelines for "old churches" is a bit ridiculous. As soon as these guys bought the place, it stopped being a church and became a church-shaped house instead. It's their house and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to use whichever object they want to hang their pool cues on.
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?
Prostitution is illegal in most countries and I don't think costumers would be confortable with looking and paying for whores in a place that used to be a church (and may still remind them of one). Heavy conscience and all that.
What about is places where prostitution is legal, say Amsterdam. Would that make a difference?
I don't think so, but I also don't think that people generally advertise what buildings *used to be* before they were the current building. It's pretty much irrelevant, because it's not that building anymore. Completely different purpose, and it's taking away from the point of business, which is whatever the new building is selling or featuring or housing.
If someone is against prostitution for religious reasons, then they probably wouldn't go into a brothel, regardless of whether or not the brothel used to be a church. If someone wants to go into a brothel, they're probably going to go regardless of the building's former constructions (church or not).
On April 18 2012 22:04 fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi wrote:
On April 18 2012 21:58 vGl-CoW wrote: I think that the idea of guidelines for "old churches" is a bit ridiculous. As soon as these guys bought the place, it stopped being a church and became a church-shaped house instead. It's their house and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to use whichever object they want to hang their pool cues on.
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?
On April 18 2012 21:58 Zandar wrote: You can do pretty cool things with light projection and a church
I can imagine some religious people would be offended by reusing an old church as a prostitution house, which would be understandable, but I don't think it would be reasonable. As far as I'm concerned, the building stopped being a church as soon as it was sold. It is now a house that happens to be shaped like a church.
If I personally owned an old church building, would I think it a good idea to turn it into a prostitution house? Probably not, but only out of pragmatic concerns, because I'd have to deal with a bunch of complaints, even though I feel they're being unreasonable.
(FWIW, this issue depends a lot on the cultural context. If I turned an old church building into a prostitution house here in Belgium, it might make the local newspapers, but I'm pretty sure there would be virtually no outrage at all. If I tried the same thing in say, the US Bible Belt, I wouldn't be too surprised to find my building torched to the ground.)
On April 18 2012 22:04 fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi wrote:
On April 18 2012 21:58 vGl-CoW wrote: I think that the idea of guidelines for "old churches" is a bit ridiculous. As soon as these guys bought the place, it stopped being a church and became a church-shaped house instead. It's their house and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to use whichever object they want to hang their pool cues on.
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?
Prostitution is illegal in most countries and I don't think costumers would be confortable with looking and paying for whores in a place that used to be a church (and may still remind them of one). Heavy conscience and all that.
What about is places where prostitution is legal, say Amsterdam. Would that make a difference?
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.
To be honest the cross being used as a pool cue is a bit offensive but I don't think that has any affect on it behind an old church. If it was any old building then having a cross being a pool stick holder be any different? I agree with firebolt that the thing they did wrong was publishing it and trying to get a reaction from religious people. the lack of respect is the problem here not them buying some old building and reusing it for what they want to do. Churches are just buildings not some holy relic like a cross.
On April 18 2012 22:30 fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi wrote:
On April 18 2012 22:12 Sbrubbles wrote:
On April 18 2012 22:04 fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi wrote:
On April 18 2012 21:58 vGl-CoW wrote: I think that the idea of guidelines for "old churches" is a bit ridiculous. As soon as these guys bought the place, it stopped being a church and became a church-shaped house instead. It's their house and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to use whichever object they want to hang their pool cues on.
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?
Prostitution is illegal in most countries and I don't think costumers would be confortable with looking and paying for whores in a place that used to be a church (and may still remind them of one). Heavy conscience and all that.
What about is places where prostitution is legal, say Amsterdam. Would that make a difference?
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.
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.
On April 18 2012 22:31 archonOOid wrote: The churches has always been empty, from my perspective. Why not fill them with a joyful activity or any other activity for that matter?
That's deep. In what sense are they empty? Maybe not most catholic churchgoers think of jumping up and down and screaming halleluja as a way of celebrating mass.
I'm speaking from a philosophical, popular and moral perspective. If the echos of a lonely priest in a lonely church is a way of celebrating mass it surely feels like a hollow religion to me.
On April 18 2012 21:58 vGl-CoW wrote: I think that the idea of guidelines for "old churches" is a bit ridiculous. As soon as these guys bought the place, it stopped being a church and became a church-shaped house instead. It's their house and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to use whichever object they want to hang their pool cues on.
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?
As long as it's legal wherever the church is located, it's fine. His point is that it is not a church anymore and it doesn't matter what happens to it.
In France this case is a bit different because most of church are very very old, and the buildings (owned by the french State) are protected. You can buy few old unused churches, but you can't do anything you want with it because it's an historical monument, protected by french laws.
Exactly like castles, or any very old building, you must respect an awful list of specifications each time you want build, rebuilt or destroy something (Same if your house is near an historical building, it's forbidden to paint your outside walls in pink or blue for exemple) .
Brothel are forbidden in France, but if it was allowed, i'm not sure how a brothel in a church would be considered...it doesn't destroy the building, but it's not vey good for it's image...Good question...
I see nothing wrong with this. In fact, the big crosses on churches here in the US sometimes double as cell towers. These are on active churches, too. Thank Jesus for your 4G connection.
On April 18 2012 23:00 Agathon wrote: In France this case is a bit different because most of church are very very old, and the buildings (owned by the french State) are protected. You can buy few old unused churches, but you can't do anything you want with it because it's an historical monument, protected by french laws.
Exactly like castles, or any very old building, you must respect an awful list of specifications each time you want build, rebuilt or destroy something (Same if your house is near an historical building, it's forbidden to paint your outside walls in pink or blue for exemple) .
Brothel are forbidden in France, but if it was allowed, i'm not sure how a brothel in a church would be considered...it doesn't destroy the building, but it's not vey good for it's image...Good question...
To be honest though in France you have things like cathedrals and other supper massive landmark pieces of architectural that changed the way that people forever built buildings while at the same time being supper massive pieces of art. They can't be preserved in a museum but they should still be respected for what they are. I would argue that there is no better example of architectural art in the world then the great cathedrals of Europe.
it just amazes me how a thread with only the slightest bit of relations to christianity can cause as much flaming as a religion vs atheist thread. Hate spreads like wildfire.
On April 18 2012 21:30 fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi wrote: 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).
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:
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.
There is nothing wrong with desecrating crosses.
It's not illegal.
And it's not real.
It depends on the contract no? And it depends on if the building is a historical artifact.
In the US, if the building is considered historical, then you're legally not allowed to change it from its previous form. This could be anything from movie theaters to churches and is on the whim of local and state government. I don't see anything wrong with that.
I don't think it's a valid reason to simply state that since you disagree with the beliefs that it is automatically not valid. Mutual respect is always the better deal.
I'm moderately religious (Catholic) and when I saw the pictures I just laughed. It's not a church any-more, as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't do it myself, but if you aren't religious then I don't see why you'd attach any value to the church or the items contained therein. If you don't attach any value to a cross then it's just two pieces of wood and why would you give a shit what happens to them?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Who is being harmed by this behavior? No one? That's all I need to know.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
On April 18 2012 22:30 fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi wrote:
On April 18 2012 22:12 Sbrubbles wrote:
On April 18 2012 22:04 fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi wrote:
On April 18 2012 21:58 vGl-CoW wrote: I think that the idea of guidelines for "old churches" is a bit ridiculous. As soon as these guys bought the place, it stopped being a church and became a church-shaped house instead. It's their house and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to use whichever object they want to hang their pool cues on.
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?
Prostitution is illegal in most countries and I don't think costumers would be confortable with looking and paying for whores in a place that used to be a church (and may still remind them of one). Heavy conscience and all that.
What about is places where prostitution is legal, say Amsterdam. Would that make a difference?
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.
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.
On April 18 2012 21:58 vGl-CoW wrote: I think that the idea of guidelines for "old churches" is a bit ridiculous. As soon as these guys bought the place, it stopped being a church and became a church-shaped house instead. It's their house and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to use whichever object they want to hang their pool cues on.
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?
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."
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.
just gonna throw out there that 'chruch' as used in the new testament is from a greek word which means gathering. It's not a building, it's not a monument and it's not necessarily a word used to describe a religious gathering. In Acts 19 (i think) the word is used to describe a riot by the ephesian people trying to attack some christians.
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.
On April 18 2012 22:30 fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi wrote:
On April 18 2012 22:12 Sbrubbles wrote:
On April 18 2012 22:04 fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi wrote:
On April 18 2012 21:58 vGl-CoW wrote: I think that the idea of guidelines for "old churches" is a bit ridiculous. As soon as these guys bought the place, it stopped being a church and became a church-shaped house instead. It's their house and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to use whichever object they want to hang their pool cues on.
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?
Prostitution is illegal in most countries and I don't think costumers would be confortable with looking and paying for whores in a place that used to be a church (and may still remind them of one). Heavy conscience and all that.
What about is places where prostitution is legal, say Amsterdam. Would that make a difference?
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.
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.
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.
I don't think it matters. There is a Music store here where I live that originally was in an old red church that was no longer used, and a few years later they moved out of that church, and moved to another un-used red church. You can't tell they were churches other than the fact they look like it on the outside
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 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.
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 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.
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. 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.
It's there fault for leaving stuff that they would get offended if used for a different reason in the church after they sell it. Also if they want to have guidelines they will need to deal with the fact that many people won't want to buy because of the guidelines.
I've been in an old church turned into a concert/banquet hall, and I must say, the acoustics were amazing. It was an event with an organ concert, banquet and then dj/dancing. Everything felt really glorious and monumental even though the event wasn't that big of a deal (a banquet ending a week-long academic conference). Wish I could find some photos, but here's the website of the place: http://www.muv-ffo.de/konzerthalle-index.htm Really digging the idea of using those spaces. The skatepark place looks amazing
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 you bought it is now your pile of organised rocks in which you can live, and you can do whatever you want with it. I don't see where the problem is.
While these churches may not be in use anymore, I'm sure there are people in the area who once may have used them, or at least are religious, and so it just seems that this whole thing is just going to be atheists who want to be somewhat abrasive and prove a point. Personally, it seems a bit disrespectful and in poor taste, and I can't really understand why anyone would want to be somewhere like that, but at the end of the day if what they're doing is legal then so be it.
As a pretty conservative Catholic.. I think it was dumb of the people who sold the place to be leaving removable icons like that behind. If you sell it, they can do whatever they want with it! 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On April 18 2012 22:30 fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi wrote:
On April 18 2012 22:12 Sbrubbles wrote:
On April 18 2012 22:04 fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi wrote:
On April 18 2012 21:58 vGl-CoW wrote: I think that the idea of guidelines for "old churches" is a bit ridiculous. As soon as these guys bought the place, it stopped being a church and became a church-shaped house instead. It's their house and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to use whichever object they want to hang their pool cues on.
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?
Prostitution is illegal in most countries and I don't think costumers would be confortable with looking and paying for whores in a place that used to be a church (and may still remind them of one). Heavy conscience and all that.
What about is places where prostitution is legal, say Amsterdam. Would that make a difference?
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.
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.
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:
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.
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)
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.
On April 18 2012 22:30 fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi wrote:
On April 18 2012 22:12 Sbrubbles wrote:
On April 18 2012 22:04 fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi wrote:
On April 18 2012 21:58 vGl-CoW wrote: I think that the idea of guidelines for "old churches" is a bit ridiculous. As soon as these guys bought the place, it stopped being a church and became a church-shaped house instead. It's their house and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to use whichever object they want to hang their pool cues on.
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?
Prostitution is illegal in most countries and I don't think costumers would be confortable with looking and paying for whores in a place that used to be a church (and may still remind them of one). Heavy conscience and all that.
What about is places where prostitution is legal, say Amsterdam. Would that make a difference?
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.
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.
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.
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.
On April 18 2012 22:26 frontliner2 wrote: In the Netherlands all Churches that get closed due to less and less Christianity all become changed to Mosques.
Isn't it awesome?
( :S )
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.
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.
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 00:07 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
On April 18 2012 21:30 fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi wrote: 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).
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:
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.
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?
Gotta admit i didnt know what to think when i say this, though its nice this thread didnt become the main battlefield for the everlasting war between the two sides,but 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?
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...
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.
The first post says all that needs to be said about this. If the church doesn't want their sacred items messed with, they should remove them before allowing the church to be used.
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.
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?
Honestly I don't think it matters what you do. I would only consider it problematic if the church/building was worth keeping pristine for some historically important reason or the like.
To anyone who doesn't acknowledge 'it', the Cross is just two pieces of wood. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
it's disrespectful to use the cross in such a manner, especially because it seemed as if they specifically wanted to create that image.
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.
No there shouldn't be any rules. Unless the building is listed (not sure if that term is relevant outside the UK), the owner of the building should have freedom.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think so. If that is the case, then we need to outlaw personal possession of works of knowledge since it being personal property gives them exclusive rights to do with it as they please.
As far as the art gallery, I can understand some outrage if he bought them up with the plan to destroy them and without the original owners knowing that, but besides that I feel the same as above.
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.
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.
I don't think so. If that is the case, then we need to outlaw personal possession of works of knowledge since it being personal property gives them exclusive rights to do with it as they please.
As far as the art gallery, I can understand some outrage if he bought them up with the plan to destroy them and without the original owners knowing that, but besides that I feel the same as above.
yeah. i think i'm with you, but with reservations..
suppose someone were to destroy knowledge that would have bettered the human race? actually I remember hearing somewhere (i'm full of hearsay tonight.. don't know where it's all come from) that oil companies buy up patents for more fuel efficient engines like this and then do nothing with the patent in order to keep us reliant on them. Don't know if that's true.
this is getting off topic, I don't think religious iconography is this important, but is there a point at which something is so valuable that people shouldn't have the right to destroy it even if they legally own it? i feel like that's a more interesting debate.
I just don't see anything desecrating in those pictures in the OP. I think people choose to get offended. But really, they didn't turn the cross upside down, or draw satan symbols on it.
They used it for a very practical, and reasonable purpose. Jesus, being a carpenter, I think would actually approve.
Bottom-line, it isn't the Church's cross. The people in that house own it, so it is just two piece of wood fastened together perpendicularly. I see no reason that they can't do whatever they want with that "cross".
Anyone can buy an old church and do whatever they want with it, so why is this even a thread? just to see how many people are extremely religious? If anyone is looking for affordable housing why not buy a church and renovate it if the price is right? The people who buy the churches could burn statues of Jesus and all the crosses if they didn't want it around, who cares what old Christians think of it. It truly isn't hurting anyone..
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.
It's not about the cross or the books. People are saying we shouldn't care because it is thir property--and it's easy to say that when you don't care about the object in question. I might think crosses and churches are heretical to the practice of Christianity--but that doesn't mean I can tell Christians to toss their crosses. Likewise, we can't tell those dudes to take down their pool cue just because we don't like it. By what if it's something that isn't so neutral? I'm pro choice, a woman can do what she will with her body--but I still cringe and the idea of legal infanticide. But it's her body, it's their cross, and it's the hypothetical argument's library.
Sometimes I feel like I'm in a lecture on quantum mechanics and someone comes in and says 'hey guys, what do you think about this gravitational constant thing?!'.
It's no wonder philosophy is regarded as useless when your minds are filled with such banality.
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.
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.
I don't think so. If that is the case, then we need to outlaw personal possession of works of knowledge since it being personal property gives them exclusive rights to do with it as they please.
As far as the art gallery, I can understand some outrage if he bought them up with the plan to destroy them and without the original owners knowing that, but besides that I feel the same as above.
yeah. i think i'm with you, but with reservations..
suppose someone were to destroy knowledge that would have bettered the human race? actually I remember hearing somewhere (i'm full of hearsay tonight.. don't know where it's all come from) that oil companies buy up patents for more fuel efficient engines like this and then do nothing with the patent in order to keep us reliant on them. Don't know if that's true.
this is getting off topic, I don't think religious iconography is this important, but is there a point at which something is so valuable that people shouldn't have the right to destroy it even if they legally own it? i feel like that's a more interesting debate.
If someone bought a library or an art museum an everything in it he can burn the whole thing down, it is his physical property. To solve your patent problem, intellectual property should be public information, and the private sector should deal in the physical. Then no one can destroy information (as everyone legally owns and has it) and people can do whatever they want with their shit.
I'm the one who posted the pictures of the house. The house belongs to my dad and his partner who bought it a few years ago and turned it into a home. I posted it in the atheism subreddit because I thought atheists wouldn't be offended by such a thing and think it was a cool idea. Little did I know how many Christians lurk on this subreddit. If you're offended by this...well I guess I apologise. But the simple fact is that this was done because it fits with the aesthetics of the house, not to show anyone up or stick it to the big man or anything. This church is in Australia and I guess it's just not thought of as an issue here. Pretty sure the original church goers wouldn't be too fussed either. They're Presbyterian's, it's not their bag to get riled up about such things.
I'm the one who posted the pictures of the house. The house belongs to my dad and his partner who bought it a few years ago and turned it into a home. I posted it in the atheism subreddit because I thought atheists wouldn't be offended by such a thing and think it was a cool idea. Little did I know how many Christians lurk on this subreddit. If you're offended by this...well I guess I apologise. But the simple fact is that this was done because it fits with the aesthetics of the house, not to show anyone up or stick it to the big man or anything. This church is in Australia and I guess it's just not thought of as an issue here. Pretty sure the original church goers wouldn't be too fussed either. They're Presbyterian's, it's not their bag to get riled up about such things.
All I can tell you is it's a fantastic LAN house.
did you read the thread? you're probably safe from the mob with pitchforks for now, But only if you say 50 ave-marias while walking counter-clockwise around where the baptismal font used to be. And then pass wind in the direction of mecca.
I'm the one who posted the pictures of the house. The house belongs to my dad and his partner who bought it a few years ago and turned it into a home. I posted it in the atheism subreddit because I thought atheists wouldn't be offended by such a thing and think it was a cool idea. Little did I know how many Christians lurk on this subreddit. If you're offended by this...well I guess I apologise. But the simple fact is that this was done because it fits with the aesthetics of the house, not to show anyone up or stick it to the big man or anything. This church is in Australia and I guess it's just not thought of as an issue here. Pretty sure the original church goers wouldn't be too fussed either. They're Presbyterian's, it's not their bag to get riled up about such things.
All I can tell you is it's a fantastic LAN house.
did you read the thread? you're probably safe from the mob with pitchforks for now, But only if you say 50 ave-marias while walking counter-clockwise around where the baptismal font used to be. And then pass wind in the direction of mecca.
Yeah wasn't so much talking about this thread, mainly the original Reddit post. One super crazy in particular said "Desecrate the cross, and God will lay a metastasized cancer on you". Nice chap.
Desecrate is a strong word. Personally, I lol'd pretty hard when I saw that they converted it into a pool cue holder. Pretty Smart actually, but I'm not religious at all. I just kind of feel like people are way to sensitive. Like does this really matter in the scheme of things? It's inside his own place, you didn't do it. So mind your own business.
if god had wanted the church not to become a LAN house, god would have prevented it from becoming a LAN house. he works in mysterious ways and apparently approves LAN houses. Allāhu Akbar!
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.
Actually during the purchase the reverend tried to screw over my old man on the selling price. He initially accepted the offer, then rang back and denied it and said someone else made a higher offer. Turned out to be BS though. But they left the place with their grumpy pants on and took everything and won't give copies of old photos etc. Would have been great to have some photos of weddings and whatnot from the 60s. All they ended up leaving was a collection plate, the lectern with the cross attached, and some tacky Christian paraphernalia.
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.
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.
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).
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:
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.
The church I was christened in is in a wreck and they're thinking what they can do with it. I heard they want to make it into a community thing but there is a graveyard attatched so can't really serve alcohol.....
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
I'm not reading 9 pages over this. I'm just replying to the OP.
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*
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 -_-.
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).
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:
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.
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*
Some interesting information on the Church as described in the Bible:
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.
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.
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.
When do two pieces of wood become a cross? Why worship a false idol? Why regard something that doesn't affect them?
It's their property, they can do whatever the hell they want.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just curious about the "If you buy it you can do whatever you please"-part most people here seem to have as their main understanding. In Germany (and most of Europe, at least I thought it's that way) old buildings often get a protection from the state which prevents the owner from modifying or altering certain things about them. So, yes, for people living in those buildings it's completely normal to get "forced upon them" what they can and can't do with their property.
Is this less of a deal in e.g. the Netherlands or are people in this thread overstating in which ways the new owners "changed" the building and modified it?
(As an example, you'd get smacked around here if you'd add or modify electrical wiring within the walls and would have to find a solution that doesn't involve damaging the walls.)
On April 20 2012 23:40 r.Evo wrote: Just curious about the "If you buy it you can do whatever you please"-part most people here seem to have as their main understanding. In Germany (and most of Europe, at least I thought it's that way) old buildings often get a protection from the state which prevents the owner from modifying or altering certain things about them. So, yes, for people living in those buildings it's completely normal to get "forced upon them" what they can and can't do with their property.
Is this less of a deal in e.g. the Netherlands or are people in this thread overstating in which ways the new owners "changed" the building and modified it?
(As an example, you'd get smacked around here if you'd add or modify electrical wiring within the walls and would have to find a solution that doesn't involve damaging the walls.)
I'm also not clear on the Netherlands policy, but you can be quite creative within the guidelines for heritage buildings.
Things like the skatepark in the church pictured earlier in the thread don't actually have a serious effect on the character of the building itself, only on its use, so if the community was happy with it and it wasn't so important historically that it had to be maintained as when in use I don't think there would be any big issue with the conversion. Likewise for a building which uses an internal steel frame to support upper floors where there were none.
You have an organisation you can appeal to if you do want to make other modifications in most countries though.
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.
I'm right here with you. I suppose my last post was a little hidden in meaning. A lot of people point to the old testament and misunderstand the lessons and disregard the significance of Christ. But that's a tangent. I'm fine with buying a Church and turning it into something else, as long as the previous Church has a chance to remove the objects if they please. The Church that Christ refers to is a sense of community, and there is only one reference that I know of (feel free to correct me), of a physical Church, and that is the Church in Israel in which the Mosque currently sits. The significance is of course the second coming of Christ, but again, this is slightly a tangent.
There should be no guidelines on using religious buildings for something else. Historical buildings whether religious or not should be protected (I'm talking signifigant buildings here).
Countless children have been molested in churches. Martyr's have been created in mosques. (the list goes on - not picking on any one religion) A cross turned pool cue holder? Are you kidding me? People actually care about this shit?
There is a church just down the road from me here in Australia that is now a Bavarian Bier Cafe. Previously it was an Italian Restaurant after it was no longer used as a church. + Show Spoiler +
On April 23 2012 09:18 [Erasmus] wrote: There is a church just down the road from me here in Australia that is now a Bavarian Bier Cafe. Previously it was an Italian Restaurant after it was no longer used as a church. + Show Spoiler +
I think that's a lovely building. I would rather see an old Church be maintained by someone else then let the building go into ruin. Better part for me is that if people recognize that it's an old Church, it may make them think about going to Church. I'm all for it.
On April 20 2012 23:40 r.Evo wrote: Just curious about the "If you buy it you can do whatever you please"-part most people here seem to have as their main understanding. In Germany (and most of Europe, at least I thought it's that way) old buildings often get a protection from the state which prevents the owner from modifying or altering certain things about them. So, yes, for people living in those buildings it's completely normal to get "forced upon them" what they can and can't do with their property.
Is this less of a deal in e.g. the Netherlands or are people in this thread overstating in which ways the new owners "changed" the building and modified it?
(As an example, you'd get smacked around here if you'd add or modify electrical wiring within the walls and would have to find a solution that doesn't involve damaging the walls.)
True, mainly becuase we have magnificent classical/neoclassical/baroque architecture not present in America. France is the gold standard in heritage preservation.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2RXFZ.jpg)
![[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)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/CwOaG)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QBqoq.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.bavarianbiercafe.com/media/cache/-7858_r402x0-1_c402x402-0x0q100.jpg)
