Many religious edifices are to do with power or making a statement. And I’m not talking about regular churches which accomodate the needs of the locals but the BIG places which seem half empty even when they have hundreds of people inside.
Take Norwich in England for example. The Normans invaded us and the first thing they did was build a great big fuckoff castle and a great big fuckoff cathedral. They built the cathedral in the stupidest place imaginable in that it was marshy ground. But they did so because that way they could kick out the local market traders and claim the land as being Norman property. If you want to point out your right to belong in a place then kicking the locals out and sticking up a big building are two pretty good ways to do it!
Both buildings are absolutely beautiful. Both were built to make the point that the invaders were here to stay. Neither were actually necessary for worship since there were dozens of churches in the city. But often, a building is about more than it’s basic function.
Now nobody said it was the *only * reason honey. But it’s a common one. You need to read what is being said rather than getting all prickly over nothing.
I never read in the bible that God required a huge building for people to worship in. Rather, most religions promote humility. Where there are huge buildings there is often a reason other than purely piety.
I apologise for mischaracterising your statement. Certainly it doesn’t mean that liking tall rooms is the only reason.
However, when people are asked why something is so, and a single reason is given, that reason is usually either a) the sole reason or b) the most important reason of many. So, i’m left to think that in your response to “Why do people make big churches?” your reponse of “they like big rooms” was an attempt to highlight the most important reason behind this. Or do you generally respond to questions for reasoning with the trivial answers? When you’re helping people out with those big words, you might want to ask them to teach you about normal social interaction.
Ah, reminds me of the attempt to have a mosque built in Northern Ireland. The rather decrepit local politician who headed efforts to have planning permission blocked cited at first issues with the infrastructure for water in the area, before revealing, incredibly quickly, that it was more of an issue with how locals would feel about this new culture being brought to bear on them. I wonder how they got on in the end.
Not at all related, but I recall that during The War, Belfast had a Jew an mayor. Apparently did a good job with economic development, and he was considered neutral.
I checked wikipedia and it seems you may be thinking of Otto Jaffe who was actually forced to flee Belfast during WWI becuase of his German ancestry :smack:
Gosh and don’t you just fancy yourself as Anne Robinson.
Tell you what, if you actually develop any kind of debating or discussion skills then you might get somewhere. Harping on with the same line over and over to multiple people doesn’t really gain you any points and makes you look silly. If you seriously think that religious edifices are nothing whatsoever to do with displays of power then find some evidence or at least a decently thought out opinion on the subject and let us hear about it.
But at the very least stop bleating ‘Isn’t true! Isn’t true!’ because it makes you sound like a recalcitrant four-year-old.
You’re seriously stupid. For one thing, another poster asserted that a particular thing was always the case. I then questioned that assertion. In response, I got questioned if I believed that the original assertion was never the case. 'Tain’t the way it works around these parts, punk. Asserter provides proof of assertion.
Being a good debater here for a number of years, one might say that I am a tad familiar with debate on this site.
Now it’s time for you to take your own advice, isn’t it?
The statement that all religious edifices are expressions of power was, of course, hyperbolic. It is unproven and unprovable. There is no cite I could provide that would prove that it is true. That is why I posted it in the BBQ Pit.
So you now admit that “the purpose of all religious edifices is a display of power” is not the case. And this after your stupid comment to me on the issue. Thanks.
