These churches, Christian or not, claim they’re “spiritual” and yet they need all these show-y off-y buildings. Strange…
(That doesn’t mean these buildings aren’t nice but that’s another story.)
i think your “fundamentalist” side may be showing. Religious oranizations most always had “show-y off-y buildings” ie.The Jerusalem Temple; medieval cathedrals; Buddist Temples etc. It was the Calviniists who opposed this in Western society, for political reasons.
The question is whether there is a significant number of persons to whom belonging to a church meets some need or desire that cannot otherwise be met. And if so, are some of those persons basically non-theistic Humanists? If that is the case, then I think Humanism should bless them with Churches. Why should only religions provide for that need/desire. Personally, I want as little to do as possible with churches, but that’s just me. The Church of Non-Theistic Humanists is not for me, but it could be for others.
That is our weak point; we tend to worship individualism rather than social organization. IMO this may also one of the mian points of contention between small gov’t. conservatives who believe that social support comes from local community vs. liberals who bellieve the govenment should provide the basic social services at least as far as making food housing and medical care affordable.
These churches, Christian or not, claim they’re “spiritual” and yet they need all these show-y off-y buildings. Strange…
(That doesn’t mean these buildings aren’t nice but that’s another story.)
i think your “fundamentalist” side may be showing. Religious oranizations most always had “show-y off-y buildings” ie.The Jerusalem Temple; medieval cathedrals; Buddist Temples etc. It was the Calviniists who opposed this in Western society, for political reasons.
I think you missed Cheepnis’s point, Gary. I believe he was saying that theists talk about spirituality as being separate from money or other physical opulence, yet go to great lengths to demonstrate it in their buildings.
These churches, Christian or not, claim they’re “spiritual” and yet they need all these show-y off-y buildings. Strange…
(That doesn’t mean these buildings aren’t nice but that’s another story.)
i think your “fundamentalist” side may be showing. Religious oranizations most always had “show-y off-y buildings” ie.The Jerusalem Temple; medieval cathedrals; Buddist Temples etc. It was the Calviniists who opposed this in Western society, for political reasons.
I think you missed Cheepnis’s point, Gary. I believe he was saying that theists talk about spirituality as being separate from money or other physical opulence, yet go to great lengths to demonstrate it in their buildings.
I believe he was saying that theists talk about spirituality as being separate from money or other physical opulence, yet go to great lengths to demonstrate it in their buildings.
Some religions seperate it, some don’t, the Protestant Revolution was very much about the RC Church’s use of indulgences to raise money to pay for the physical opulamce. IMO, one of the reasons for the Calvinist emphasis on “plain worship houses was a reaction to the percieved waste of capital needed for capitalist expansion this entailed. The RC and many other religions gave spiritual rewards for monetary donations. Cultural differences do exisit among the “spiritual” as much as any of the rest of us and even we non-believers can still be influenced by these schools of thought.
Think about no physical opulance in religion; no Sistine Chapel etc.
