|
Post by monklady123 on May 21, 2015 22:35:17 GMT
Yes, I would agree with you. I think pretty much all church buildings are superfluous. If you think I am arguing in favor of the mega-churches, you are mistaken. Julie No, Julie, I didn't think that you were arguing in favor of megachurches at all You're actually one of the very, very few Christians I've heard acknowledge that there seems to be no biblical basis for megachurches at all. Well, there really can't be any biblical justification or condemnation of mega churches because there weren't any back then. Christianity was kind of new and there weren't enough Christians for a mega church. Same as, for example, driving to synagogue. The stricter Jewish people (Orthodox and some Conservatives) say that driving to services isn't allowed. But the Hebrew Bible is quite silent on rules about driving one's car. Yes, I'm being silly. But personally I don't believe that the scriptures are meant to be taken literally on every word, because they are a product of their time and culture. The "spirit of the law" is "love one another as I have loved you". For me, that encompasses a lot. Also, full disclosure -- I very much dislike mega churches, and even very large (but not quite mega) ones. I "fit" very nicely in my micro church, membership 98 at the moment, with some of those overseas or in nursing homes so our Sunday attendance is maybe 45 on a good day.
|
|
|
Post by greenlegume on May 21, 2015 23:43:46 GMT
Well, then, we agree on some pretty major points. I don't have any problem with any church not performing gay weddings. But I have a huge problem with them trying to prevent all gay marriages. Same with birth control, and many other issues. But I still absolutely think it's hypocritical for any Christian to cherry-pick what parts of their religion's teachings they're going to believe and live by, much less try to claim any kind of moral high ground based on their completely fluid and picked-over religious views. And I still disagree with your assertion that because I'm not a Mormon, Catholic, or another Christian denomination, that I have less of a right to an opinion on the things those churches do. As long as they're coasting by tax-free, and/or trying to legislate their beliefs into law, then I have every right to an opinion. I agree that you have every right to an opinion. It's just that there are a variety of decisions neither of us get to participate in because we aren't part of the groups in question. Including - to bring this one full circle - the building project of a church we aren't at all involved with. Like I said upthread, my church will embark on a building project in the foreseeable future. The reality just is that the number of people whose opinions won't be taken into account is larger than the number that will. There are internal and external stakeholders like the school leadership and specific community members whose needs are met by the building itself - those are the folks on the building committee. I am sure many people have many opinions on many things. That's fine. But I don't expect people who have no stake in the whole thing to have influence on the design or construction of the building. That is really what I'm getting at. Some decisions get made pretty democratically and some decisions get made by a subset of the stakeholders. The design of a church building is for the most part the latter. It's not because people shouldn't have an opinion - it's because there are only so many opinions that can be taken into account. I can already say from experience that everybody has an opinion about our new building - it's logically and logistically impossible to accommodate everything. You know, I agree with you. I don't want any part of making any church's or religion's decisions. But if someone comes along and tells any of us speaking out that we have no right to an opinion, or that anyone with an opposing opinion should just shut up, like a few people in this thread did, then I have a big problem with it. I thought that you were agreeing with them when you made that post that I first quoted. I'm glad to see that I was mistaken about that. Especially since I've always thought highly of how you talk about and seem to live your religion. I've always appreciated your posts on religion, and your consistency.
|
|
|
Post by greenlegume on May 21, 2015 23:58:26 GMT
No, Julie, I didn't think that you were arguing in favor of megachurches at all You're actually one of the very, very few Christians I've heard acknowledge that there seems to be no biblical basis for megachurches at all. Well, there really can't be any biblical justification or condemnation of mega churches because there weren't any back then. Christianity was kind of new and there weren't enough Christians for a mega church. Same as, for example, driving to synagogue. The stricter Jewish people (Orthodox and some Conservatives) say that driving to services isn't allowed. But the Hebrew Bible is quite silent on rules about driving one's car. Yes, I'm being silly. But personally I don't believe that the scriptures are meant to be taken literally on every word, because they are a product of their time and culture. The "spirit of the law" is "love one another as I have loved you". For me, that encompasses a lot. I don't really disagree with you. But there were at least a couple of peas on this thread who call themselves Christians who absolutely did claim that some OT stories justified megachurches, and that's really what I took issue with. Especially when one minute we had Christians claiming that the OT no longer applies and that they're not bound by OT law. And yet, over and over, Christians will use OT stories to justify things that they or their churches do. You really can't have it both ways. I don't care if people want to take the bible literally, BUT if they're going to claim to do that while selectively and fluidly deciding what they're going to adhere to and what they're not, they shouldn't be surprised or all butthurt when they're called out on their inconsistency or even hypocrisy. I don't want a vote in any church or religious organization, but I'm certainly allowed to have an opinion and speak out about what they do, despite what some religious people have tried to claim. And I'm not talking about you personally, monklady
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on May 22, 2015 0:18:19 GMT
Well, then, we agree on some pretty major points. I don't have any problem with any church not performing gay weddings. But I have a huge problem with them trying to prevent all gay marriages. Same with birth control, and many other issues. But I still absolutely think it's hypocritical for any Christian to cherry-pick what parts of their religion's teachings they're going to believe and live by, much less try to claim any kind of moral high ground based on their completely fluid and picked-over religious views. And I still disagree with your assertion that because I'm not a Mormon, Catholic, or another Christian denomination, that I have less of a right to an opinion on the things those churches do. As long as they're coasting by tax-free, and/or trying to legislate their beliefs into law, then I have every right to an opinion. I agree that you have every right to an opinion. It's just that there are a variety of decisions neither of us get to participate in because we aren't part of the groups in question. Including - to bring this one full circle - the building project of a church we aren't at all involved with. Like I said upthread, my church will embark on a building project in the foreseeable future. The reality just is that the number of people whose opinions won't be taken into account is larger than the number that will. There are internal and external stakeholders like the school leadership and specific community members whose needs are met by the building itself - those are the folks on the building committee. I am sure many people have many opinions on many things. That's fine. But I don't expect people who have no stake in the whole thing to have influence on the design or construction of the building. That is really what I'm getting at. Some decisions get made pretty democratically and some decisions get made by a subset of the stakeholders. The design of a church building is for the most part the latter. It's not because people shouldn't have an opinion - it's because there are only so many opinions that can be taken into account. I can already say from experience that everybody has an opinion about our new building - it's logically and logistically impossible to accommodate everything. I don't want to make a decision about the building process or the building itself. That is not and has not been my argument or anyone else's argument at all. My argument all along has been that if you claim to be Christian, then my understanding is that you then also claim the bible to be your holy book. The word of your god. Therefore, it is not unjustified that A) I say you are a hypocrite based on your own bible doctrine when your actions don't match what it says. B) I say that it is obscene that you are so blatantly incapable of seeing that your actions don't match what you claim your jesus stands for. So decisions are just plain selfish and wrong. And I don't need a holy book to tell me this, and the fact that others who proudly hold that up as the standard for morality will also wield it as a weapon against the most poor among us and claim some kind of high ground. Building a mega church in an area where poverty reigns is sick. It doesn't matter if your mega church is an ugly modern building, a catholic cathedral or a mormon temple. It is a slap in the face to the people who are suffering all around these monstrosities. And while I am not asking for a vote in when/how/why a building like this is built in the first place, I reserve the right to speak out against it when those who do vote to go forward. Particularly when I must put up my tax dollars and they don't. I maintain my stance that if you are not helping the poor, and instead are "investing" your money in real estate, they you are a prideful, arrogant, cold person, who doesn't follow your own holy book.
|
|
|
Post by stampbooker on May 22, 2015 0:43:28 GMT
No, Julie, I didn't think that you were arguing in favor of megachurches at all You're actually one of the very, very few Christians I've heard acknowledge that there seems to be no biblical basis for megachurches at all. Well, there really can't be any biblical justification or condemnation of mega churches because there weren't any back then. Christianity was kind of new and there weren't enough Christians for a mega church. Same as, for example, driving to synagogue. The stricter Jewish people (Orthodox and some Conservatives) say that driving to services isn't allowed. But the Hebrew Bible is quite silent on rules about driving one's car. Yes, I'm being silly. But personally I don't believe that the scriptures are meant to be taken literally on every word, because they are a product of their time and culture. The "spirit of the law" is "love one another as I have loved you". For me, that encompasses a lot. Also, full disclosure -- I very much dislike mega churches, and even very large (but not quite mega) ones. I "fit" very nicely in my micro church, membership 98 at the moment, with some of those overseas or in nursing homes so our Sunday attendance is maybe 45 on a good day. The point isn't if there were enough Christians or not to have a mega church. The crux of it is what is the function of the church. The function of the church is discipleship and helping one another grow through our relationships and being an expression of Christ to the world. I do not believe that the form of institutional churches is supportive of the function of the church. Besides, the definition of a mega church is 2,000 attendees. There were over 3,000 believers in Jerusalem, probably at least 5,000. Of course they did meet in the temple courts in addition to the houses. This was a public space. There are other instances in the NT were public spaces were used temporarily for specific purposes, but never on a permanent basis. The reason is that the believers functioned as a family, not an institution. Julie
|
|