 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1644 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 18th, 2008 08:20 pm |
|
Chartres Cathedral (often considered the height of Gothic artistry)
This is a rather common complaint of Protestants of a certain sort (usually "low church"). I would be a lot more inclined to accept this reasoning if indeed with all the riches we have built up, we didn't lavish them on ourselves in houses (veritable mansions for richer folks, yet few children to fill them up) and in countless wonderful, expensive structures (including automobiles, yachts, personal jets, etc.) devoted to the glory of capitalism.
Since we do that, I say it is all the more appropriate to devote some of our ingenuity and riches to building beautiful buildings devoted to God and the worship of God (rather than of mammon), and receiving Him and hearing His Word taught.
If the person who makes such complaints also spoke out against all buildings whatever (at least fancy, "excessive" ones) as materialistic and unnecessary, they might have a decent point. Somehow I don't expect that to happen anytime soon. So we have a scenario where it is perfectly acceptable to build mansions to the glory of man and mammon, but not (beautiful) churches to the glory of God. We must give God our aesthetic mediocrity and worst efforts rather than our best. We can personally live in luxury in fine palaces, but must worship in a "gymnasium" or "glorified barn". Really makes a lot of sense . . .
Nuh-uh. I don't buy it. I'm willing to tolerate men's love of money and what it results in, architecturally-speaking, but when people start going after church buildings as excessive and unnecessary, I cannot accept the glaring double standard.
And then the same person would have to explain away the Temple as a waste of resources too. Why did God command that? Did He not know that all that money could have gone to feeding the poor? God obviously was not a bleeding-heart liberal Democrat . . .
At least King Solomon had the sense of proportion and priority to think of building a temple for God at the same time he was building his own royal palace (2 Chronicles 2:1,12).
Likewise, King David gave graciously out of his own riches, to the Temple (1 Chronicles 29:1-5) and urged others to do the same (29:6-13) and knew from Whom all riches derived in the first place (29:12,14,16), and recognized that the Temple is at least as important as a palace: "the work is great; for the palace will not be for man but for the Lord God" (1 Chron 29:1).
The prophet Hosea saw something like the selfish, materialistic hypocrisy that I discuss above, too:
For Israel has forgotten his Maker, and built palaces . . .
(Hosea 8:14)
* * * * *
If it is argued that the Temple was unique because "God was there", we reply that every Catholic and Orthodox church is "God's house" too, since Jesus is present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Thus, today's churches (i.e., the ones that preserve apostolic succession) have God present in a way that goes beyond even the Holy of Holies, because God is physically present, as a result of the incarnation, where God took on flesh.
This is one reason why we have very ornate churches and altars, because God is present. It's exactly the same principle of the Temple: if God is present, then it is clearly appropriate to be ornate, so as to celebrate His presence, just as we do every earthly king.
Many Protestants, since they deny the Real, Physical, Substantial Presence, obviously would see no need to build a beautiful church because they deny that special presence of God. And that's those brands of Christianity (I used to argue exactly the same way) deny the notion of "sacred space" or "holy places." It's the anti-sacramental and quasi-Docetic, semi-Gnostic "anti-matter" mentality. These churches are holy precisely because Jesus is there, not just spiritually (as He is everywhere, in His omnipresence) but physically. That's the crucial difference. That's why we believe in sacred space, and act accordingly when present in it.
For those who reject this Substantial Presence of God, one church building is as good as another, and (as a straightforward logical deduction, though virtually no Protestants would admit this or feel comfortable with it) there is no essential distinction between worship in a pig sty or city dump, and worship at Chartres Cathedral. All Christians believe God is everywhere; that is not at issue.
By analogy, if a gorgeous, ornate Temple was commanded to be built by God, by the same token, we can make beautiful buildings for God as well. It's not a "waste" or mere materialism. We certainly have the resources to do so, but we prefer to spend our money on other things.
It is also argued that now we are the temples (as opposed to a building), based on 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 and 6:19. That continues the Old Testament temple concept in the sense that God is now spiritually inside of us through the indwelling, just as He was in the Shekinah cloud and in the Tabernacle and Temple in the Old Covenant.
But eucharistic physical presence takes it a step further and continues the Temple concept and develops and expands it, making God's presence even more profound for us than it was then, for them. Every time a Catholic or Orthodox receives the Eucharist, we are closer to God in a tangible way than even the high priest was in his yearly visit to the Holy of Holies.
The second fallacy in such an argument is that it presupposes that an earthy, physical Temple and ourselves as temples of the Holy Spirit are mutually exclusive, with one replacing the other. But this is untrue and unbiblical.
After Pentecost (i.e., after they became themselves the "temples of the Holy Spirit"), the Bible informs us that "Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour" (Acts 3:1). So now we have two temples, not mutually exclusive (secondly, Jesus referred to His Body as a "temple" when standing before the Temple building: John 2:19-21). The only reasons that this worship ceased were: 1) the split between Judaism and Christianity and subsequent ill relations, 2) the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 A.D., and 3) the inclusion of Gentiles in Christianity. But there was nothing intrinsically improper in a (Jewish) Christian worshiping there.
The notes in my RSV explain that the ninth hour was 3 PM "when sacrifice was offered with prayer (Ex 29.39; Lev. 6.20; Josephus, Ant. xiv.4.3)."
Acts 2:46 described the early Christians:
And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts,
Lastly, as far as I know, church buildings aren't mentioned in the New Testament. The early Christians continued to worship at the Temple, and in their own homes (and sometimes in synagogues: Acts 13:13-15, 42-44). So why do we have our own church buildings when it is not a NT concept? Well (as in the present case) it is a straightforward deduction from what we know. One could argue it as follows:
Biblical Evidence for Church Buildings
1) The Jews, from whom Christianity derived, worshiped in synagogues.
2) The Jews, from whom Christianity derived, worshiped in the Temple.
3) The early Christians worshiped in their homes, and clandestinely in caves or catacombs, as the case may be.
4) These are not buildings expressly constructed for Christian worship.
5) However, it stands to reason (by analogy) that Christians, whose belief-system developed from Judaism, would also eventually (especially after official persecution ceased) have buildings of worship, just as the Jews did.
6) Therefore, deductively and analogically, the Bible sanctions Christian church buildings, and the "biblical evidence" for same is the above. Last edited on Wed Mar 19th, 2008 05:36 pm by Dave Armstrong
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5350 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 19th, 2008 01:27 am |
|
Excellent, Dave, but I think it's also worth mentioning that the great churches, from Europe to New Orleans, were literally labors of love, built with the blood, sweat, and tears of the people.
Unfortunately in today's litigious society it is impossible to allow parishioners to physically build grand structures, but the old churches were literally designed and built through the love of the worshipers. Noblemen provided the materials and allowed their people to work on the project, sometimes for over a century. Imagine beginning a project you know your great-grandchildren will not even see! Today people work (time) at their jobs (talent) to earn money (treasure) which they contribute to build their houses of worship, but the core of my parish church was literally built by the people of my community. They purchased the material with their treasure, and spent their time using their talent.
The Shrine to St. Jude which sits next to our church was literally built by our Knights of Columbus council to honor the wishes of the grand knight, Horace Authement, who was given six months to live and survived for seven years as they raised the money and spent nights and weekends and summer vacations. He was present at the dedication and died shortly afterwards. How much is that shrine worth? The storage building which sits behind our parish hall is dedicated to the memory of a seven year old boy, Alvy Thibodaux Jr., who died of a brain tumor, but first galvanized the community to raise the money and make the effort to build it. His great-grandfather helped to build the original church, his grandfather helped to enlarge it, his father helped with the shrine, and his family still attends the church and visits his tomb in the cemetary. Today we are building yet another mausoleum because the people in my community don't want to be buried anywhere else. This is our community, and this is our church, and every inch of it is precious. Even the communion rail, which still stands.
IF, God forbid, the Church decided today to sell all the great cathedrals, it would not only serve no real purpose (no one is capable of paying the true value of a cathedral like Notre Dame in Paris or St. Louis Cathedral in New Orleans, and no government has a reason to), but the money generated would pale in comparison to what the Church spends. And if someone did buy the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, what would they do with it? Convert it into a museum? Isn't that what it is? And it's free to anyone who wants to walk in the door. Imagine what a private owner would charge for a visit to St. Peter's or St. John Lateran, or the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Instead, they are available free to the whole world. What is the worth of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? What would happen to it in private hands?
We commend the government for spending millions to save old buildings. When I visited Washington, Ford's Theatre was under renovation so people could pay to visit it. Many of the buildings in London were under renovation when I traveled there, and those that were open had a cost. The churches were free, but one need only to visit the great old cathedrals in England which have been in Anglican hands for half a millennium and see the difference in the loving preservation by the Catholic Church and the condition of some of these sacred old buildings that are in such disrepair one can only be thankful that the Blessed Sacrament is not present. Even the Cathedral at Port Au Prince, Haiti, is in better condition than some of the old cathedrals I visited in England. And that's fitting because the Blessed Sacrament is present.
Thank God the Catholic Church has been there for two millennia to preserve the greatest accomplishments of mankind. Otherwise, we wouldn't have them at all.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Hidden One
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 126 |
| First Name: | H1 | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | lax Presbyterian -> pseudo-Arminian non-denom -> heretical Presbyterian -> ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 19th, 2008 01:55 am |
|
Thank God the Catholic Church has been there for two millennia to preserve the greatest accomplishments of mankind. Otherwise, we wouldn't have them at all.
Thank God the Catholic Church has been there for two millennia to create the greatest accomplishments of mankind*. Otherwise, we wouldn't have them at all.
*Possibly exempting Solomon's Temple.
____________________
1 John 4:7-12
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5350 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 19th, 2008 02:06 am |
|
Hidden One wrotePossibly exempting Solomon's Temple.
Which might still be there if the Church had been there to preserve it.
I should have put "so many of..." and not implied all of the greatest creations, because there are certainly many others, but few are as well preserved as those cared for so lovingly by the Catholic Church.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
tedjenczewski
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | Richmond, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 262 |
| First Name: | Ted | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Presbyterian, revert Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 19th, 2008 02:37 am |
|
| Thanks for the post on this topic, Dave. We are blessed by the work our fathers have done in the name of the Lord.
____________________
"...the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." 1Tim 3, 15
|
|
|
Hidden One
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 126 |
| First Name: | H1 | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | lax Presbyterian -> pseudo-Arminian non-denom -> heretical Presbyterian -> ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 19th, 2008 02:42 am |
|
I should have put "so many of..." and not implied all of the greatest creations, because there are certainly many others, but few are as well preserved as those cared for so lovingly by the Catholic Church.
I disagree. I hold that all that does not glorify God is a complete waste of time, and I don't see any beautiful, well-maintained church buildings that arent' maintained by Catholcis (or Orthodox).
Last edited on Wed Mar 19th, 2008 03:01 am by Hidden One
____________________
1 John 4:7-12
|
|
|
MichaelStEdmund
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 28th, 2007 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 95 |
| First Name: | Michael | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Convert from pentacostal/charismatic/holiness background |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 19th, 2008 02:45 am |
|
Dave Armstrong wrote: <snip>
For those who reject this Substantial Presence of God, one church building is as good as another, and (as a straightforward logical deduction, though virtually no Protestants would admit this or feel comfortable with it) there is no essential distinction between worship in a pig sty or city dump, and worship at Chartres Cathedral. All Christians believe God is everywhere; that is not at issue.
<snip>
I agree with what you're saying, Dave. It occurred to me though, as I was reading the paragraph quoted above, that I've known many, many Protestants who would feel blessed to worship God in a pig sty or the city dump, because to them it proves their point. God is everywhere, wherever two or three are gathered together, and the fact that they could hold hands and worship God in a pig sty is the grandest idea in the world. Well, I can see them getting all weepy about it even if they would never really do it. From store fronts to pole barns to someone's backyard to Farmer Joe's pig sty, it's all the same to them.
Sadly, all that most people "know" about the great old cathedrals is that they're monuments to some pope's vanity, with the common people being taxed to death in order to build the hated thing. Beauty viewed through utilitarian eyes full of resentment.
____________________
"Faith seeking understanding" - St. Anselm of Canterbury.
|
|
|
NorthStar
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 86 |
| First Name: | Chuck | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 19th, 2008 07:11 pm |
|
Thanks for starting this thread. I've been thinking about this as of late too, not so much because Protestants argue it, but more so because agnostics and atheists often argue this point. And in some ways I agree with them. Partly because I suppose I've never heard a sound, logical and practical rebuttle for their POV. (since agnostics and atheists are viewing it from a non-spiritual POV)
Some of your post has helped put it into perspective in that respect.
To me, for those who DO follow some form of faith/religion, well....there is just something about going into a beautiful Church, whether it's a small parish or a grand cathedral....a Church that united earth and heaven in a real, practical yet symbolic fashion. I was just reading something from St. Theophan the recluse (a 19th Century Russian Orthodox saint) where he wrote the 2 places in all the world that "convert" more people to a more spiritual path are 1.) God's magnificent creation, especially a place of quiet, peace and solitude. But even as he puts it "a man standing at a window and looking at a tree in winter came to his senses"...and 2.) inside a Church, where a man having sensed the stillness and peace of God "abandoned his formers ways and dedicated himself to God"
I think this is absolutely true, and both places are where I've sensed God more than anywhere else. Oh yes you can experience God anywhere, because God is everywhere, and we SHOULD try and see God in the worst places...it's easy to see God in a beautiful Church, or a manificent mountain range, it's hard to see God in the lowly begger....but He's there too.
To me the Church building is not only to Glorify God, but also for OUR benefit. We need a place to go to so we can get away from the world and just be with God. For the desert fathers it was God's creation, but it's kind of hard to have 150 people gathered together to worship outside in a raging storm.  So the Church building serves practical purposes, which includes the practical purpose of our senses needing to see the beauty of God. What better way to reflect that beauty than in a Church. While it may not seem "practical" to have icons or statues or gold chalices, I think it's because people are still seeing with no spiritual eyes. We need these things to focus our short attention spans on God's Glory, I think.
True with some protestants, they see creation as almost evil, but I find it easy to debate most of them. (maybe because I've been there done that)
But I still have a hard time with the agnostic because they don't understand the need to for beauty in spiritual terms. And some times I think things can be to lavish, but as you pointed out, we think nothing of our secular society as being lavish, that's ok. maybe it's because we're still an Iconclastic nation at heart? I don't know! But if anyone has any ideas how to explain this to agnostics and atheists (and I don't mean the angry ones like Dawkins) because I still have a hard time with that. Very great topic though, I'm glad you brought it up!
Chuck
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1644 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 19th, 2008 07:41 pm |
|
Wonderful thoughts, all (thanks for the comments).
As to discussing this with atheists and agnostics:
I think we have to make a general appeal to beauty and aesthetics as an intrinsic part of the universe, and as necessary in their own way as breathing and brain waves. I would try to tie the beauty we perceive in the order and proportion, dramatic contrast, design, symmetry, color, etc., of creation to the God Who lies behind that.
In other words, it could be argued as a subset of the teleological argument for God (the argument from design). Plenty of atheists or non-Christian types have made statements along these lines. Albert Einstein (a sort of pantheist or minimal deist) comes to mind:
Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man . . . In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort . . .
(To student Phyllis Right, who asked if scientists pray; January 24, 1936)
In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.
(to German anti-Nazi diplomat and author Hubertus zu Lowenstein around 1941)
Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres.
(August 7, 1941)
I have found no better expression than 'religious' for confidence in the rational nature of reality, insofar as it is accessible to human reason. Whenever this feeling is absent, science degenerates into uninspired empiricism.
(To Maurice Solovine, January 1, 1951)
I am of the opinion that all the finer speculations in the realm of science spring from a deep religious feeling.
(in 1930)
My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we can comprehend about the knowable world. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.
(To a banker in Colorado, 1927. Cited in the New York Times obituary, April 19, 1955)
My comprehension of God comes from the deeply felt conviction of a superior intelligence that reveals itself in the knowable world.
(Answer to the question, "What is your understanding of God?" 1923)
I commented on these statements:
Now, I ask atheists: whence comes Einstein's "deeply felt conviction"? Is it a philosophical reason or the end result of a syllogism? He simply has it. It is an intuitive or instinctive feeling or "knowledge" or "sense of wonder at the incredible, mind-boggling marvels of the universe" in those who have it. Atheists don't possess this intuition, but my point is that it is not utterly implausible or unable to be held by even the most rigorous, "non-dogmatic" intellects, such as Einstein and Hume. And the atheist has to account for that fact somehow, it seems to me.
The other approach I would use is the "argument from longing." Many atheists feel this longing or deep yearning in the enjoyment of nature or a great cathedral. We can build on that and construct a persuasive argument from it that can be interesting to them and non-confrontational.
See a treatment of C.S. Lewis's version of the "argument from desire" and a fabulous article on "Aesthetic Arguments for God."
Those are two possible ways to approach such subjects with atheists and agnostics (as good as any).
See also an interview with Peter Kreeft: "A Baptism of Imagination".
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
NorthStar
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Wisconsin USA |
| Posts: | 86 |
| First Name: | Chuck | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 24th, 2008 06:16 pm |
|
Dave,
thanks for your thoughts and ideas about discussing with atheists and agnostics. Your thoughts on beauty of the cosmos are something I've never thought about applying to atheists and agnostics. (perhaps because I feel like some intelligent design proponents misuse the idea) Now thanks to you, I've got a new approach, and some reading material...
I also tend to forget that CS Lewis was at one time an atheist because his writings are so profoundly religious.
Thanks for your thoughts and suggestions...
Chuck
|
|
|
Steven Barrett
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | Hadley, Massachusetts USA |
| Posts: | 930 |
| First Name: | Steven | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic, Episcopal communicant, Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 24th, 2008 09:02 pm |
|
I've yet to run into a proponent of pig sty settings for Protestant churches; at least not in New England. BUT, I am seeing a very relaxed attitude towards even the barest of bare essentials of any formality in worship; save for Lutherans and Episcopalians. (At least the real Trad itionalists within what's left of that wing in the ECUSA aren't afra id to be sure substance sits well with style.)
As for the new evangelical anti-liturgical "vineyard" weeds sprouting up even up here (sigh), well, the pig-sty analogy might be a tad too strong insofar as architectural matters are concerned. Not so when it comes to making metaphorical references to "praise and worship music" and this new amphitheatre style of "worship" designed to promote more of our truly Americanized, individualized and whatever else-ized dumbed down culture when it comes to the really higher things in life.
I dont wish to sound blasphemous in the least bit, but I can't help wondering how much different the Resurrection narratives would've turned out if there were praise and worship singers, skit actors, and parish liturgical committees near the Tomb. That would've moved the Romans if the earthquake angels and Lord hadn't. Even Handel and Bach wouldn't have stood a poor pig sty farmer's chance in (a post-modern version of) hell.
____________________
For anybody interested in reading commentary from a Catholic's socially conservative/fiscally liberal viewpoint, go to my new blog at http://www.politicsramble.com/ .
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1644 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 24th, 2008 09:19 pm |
|
| You're most welcome, Chuck, and delightfully witty observations, Steven!
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
lia
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | Quezon City, Philippines |
| Posts: | 98 |
| First Name: | lia | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 21st, 2008 06:26 am |
|
Why do non-Catholic Christians abhor our propensity for building big and elegant churches? Do you house God in a tent? Of course God "can" live in a tent... but if He visited you, are you going to fix your sofa for Him? Or offer Him your bed? If even the woman who gave a few cents to the temple didn't begrudge God these "cents" which would be obviously have been of more use to her...then why not build a beautiful Church for God? Solomot went over board in building God a temple, right?
____________________
Man can't b forced 2 accept the truth.He can b drawn toward the truth only by his own nature, that is, by his own freedom w/c commits him 2 search sincerely 4 truth & when he finds it, 2 adhere 2 it both in his conviction & his behavior.-- JP2
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1644 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Evangelical (1977): Diverse Protestant Influences / Catholic in 1990 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 21st, 2008 04:07 pm |
|
| As I argued in my original paper / post, I think it's either a double standard on use of finances or the notion that God isn't "really" present, as we believe.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 2000+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Current time is 10:07 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
