Another Day in Paris: Notre Dame is Burning

Jetset

Ostrich
balybary said:
Macron the psycho wants to make history as the French Nero with the rebuilding of Notre Dame

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_Rome
Nero didn't help the accusations of him starting the fire by quickly reconstructing the part of the city that had burned in the Greek style and beginning work on his new palace.

Fun fact, possibly relevant here:

When Romans finally got sick of his shit, Nero's successors buried his palace then built new public facilities on top of it to return the land to the people.

I have no idea how many slaves you need in order to bury an entire palace using first-century technology, it must have been a vast project, but they hated him so much they figured it out.

(It's just behind the Colosseum. On weekends only, you can grab a hard hat and an archaeologist will take you underground and give you a tour of the dig. It's actually a great thing to do in Rome and something most visitors miss.)
 

debeguiled

Peacock
Gold Member
EwartGrogan said:
Here we go.
htc7O4g.jpg

Prime Minister Edouard Philippe told reporters they hoped for "a new spire that is adapted to the techniques and the challenges of our era".
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-euro...8eXBKcC8vdMCS8CSkV-8YluOGs2wRXJrtJEHFtGrxrGxA

This could be an offshoot of selfie culture.

People are made uncomfortable by anything that doesn't remind them of themselves.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
debeguiled said:
People keep saying we don't have the trees anymore.

Any carpenters or designers want to weigh in?

It seems like you can laminate your way to any size timber nowadays?

Can't you?

There is plenty of oak in France and elsewhere today, literally millions of mature trees. The French forest cover today is actually greater than it ever was, due to agriculture becoming more efficient, and urban migration. There aren't as many centuries-old specimens as the reforestation is a fairly modern process, but a tall, younger mature tree would do just as well.

The roof can be easily rebuilt with the same design, provided the stone structure is still solid, which it apparently is. Unlike in Dresden, the fire here probably didn't burn long/high enough to damage the sandstone walls. In Dresden, the artificially created firestorm, deliberately done by dropping large amounts of incendiary bombs in a circular pattern, burned so hot, reaching furnace-like temperatures vastly higher than open fire conditions, pulverizing the stone, causing the roof and walls to crumble (those temperatures also caused people hiding in building basements to suffocate).

[img=620x455]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe..._Martin_Luther,_Frauenkirche,_Ruine.jpg[/img]

Many of the timber construction techniques developed in the middle ages and applied in Notre Dame, like the seamless interweaving of large beams might be too sophisticated to be reproduced, but it doesn't mean that we couldn't rebuild the roof with a more conventional timber frame structure, a technical task well within reach today.

As I've said before, there is a large pool of talent in France that has been working on restoring the large and magnificent patrimoine or park of landmark buildings. I think the only technology that has been lost is advanced stained glass chemistry, and a few sophisticated carpentry techniques like the one described above.

There is a great TV series on the French international network called Des Racines et des Ailes, dedicated to this patrimoine and the people who preserve and restore it. This program is in stark contrast with the standard Year Zero pozzed fare produced on French TV. 6 years ago they had a special show on Notre Dame de Paris, highlighting the intricacies in its innards and the ongoing restoration works, here it is (autotranslate subtitles available):



There is a segment in the second part about the restoration of the timber roof in the towers, which gives you a great insight into the old structural and carpentry genius, starting here at 27:11.

The ancient guild of carpenters is still alive, we have the manpower and craftsmen trained in the old techniques that have been maintaining the existing building park! As well France is a world leader in wood engineering (along with Scandinavia and Germany). There is no reason the roof can't be rebuilt to the historic standards, or very close to them, other than ideological driven political ill-will. And given the current leadership, that could be a challenge. My gut feeling is that Macron and co will give in, look for the Gilets Jaunes to spearhead that campaign.

There is a lot of very important historic symbology in Paris, and Notre Dame, which is built on the site of an ancient temple dedicated to the pagan cult of Isis, is at the very heart of it. My gut feeling and some details tell me that this was a deliberate destruction project by the rulers to uproot Christian dominion over the city centered at Notre Dame.

That concept drawing of a new glass pyramid spire can be seen in those lines, similar to the Louvre's 666-panneled pyramid. The original ND spire was surrounded by the Twelve Apostles, standing on guard over the City. This is what people like Macron want to destroy, in the name of "modernity". But behind this, there is a strong nefarious spiritual motive.

[img=350x530]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...es_d'apôtres_à_la_base_de_la_flèche.jpg[/img]

141-ND-Paris_7380-600x400.jpg


Once you understand the symbology, you understand their motives. I will try to cover this aspect later tonight.
 

kosko

Peacock
Gold Member
The original source forest where the oak was pulled still should have mature trees. Back in those days the designers had the fort thinking to set aside many Oaks to replace the beams, for what they forecasted, would be every few hundred years. You would think France would still have these, and if not, this an exception where sourcing the adequate old Oaks from outside of France may be okay. I'm sure Quebec has some old Oaks it can donate to France which would be fitting due to the shared history of both places. France should have these sold trees, I don't believe they clear cut the whole nation as did the British, who literally, cut down all thier trees.

To that rendering I see above. Disgusting. All that new age shit with bastardazing the original design is absolutely disgusting. Pure blasphemy to peddle that shit on such a historical structure but that is the sign of times. In these times today it is all about taking a big shit on anything that is classic and invertering it into something strange.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
kosko said:
The original source forest where the oak was pulled still should have mature trees. Back in those days the designers had the fort thinking to set aside many Oaks to replace the beams, for what they forecasted, would be every few hundred years. You would think France would still have these, and if not, this an exception where sourcing the adequate old Oaks from outside of France may be okay. I'm sure Quebec has some old Oaks it can donate to France which would be fitting due to the shared history of both places. France should have these sold trees, I don't believe they clear cut the whole nation as did the British, who literally, cut down all thier trees.

To that rendering I see above. Disgusting. All that new age shit with bastardazing the original design is absolutely disgusting. Pure blasphemy to peddle that shit on such a historical structure but that is the sign of times. In these times today it is all about taking a big shit on anything that is classic and invertering it into something strange.

There are actually very, very few old growth deciduous forests in Quebec, the whole south of the province has been timbered to death. There is only a handful of small primeval forest groves left. If you want to find a 200+ year old oak in Quebec, your best bet is in a city park... There are a lot more old growth trees Stateside in New England, or even in Ontario (in places like Quetico Park) than in Quebec.

There are plenty of mature oaks in France, and in other parts of Europe though. And there are also a lot of mature (60-80 yo) oak trees in north America that would also do the job.
 

Jetset

Ostrich
EwartGrogan said:
Here we go.
htc7O4g.jpg

It took me the afternoon to realize this wasn't a meme, but an actual architect at work. I even Googled trying to remember which skyscraper that was Photoshopped off of.

So I went and found the source. The translated responses are lit:

https://twitter.com/alexandrechass6/status/1118238061186420736

"Unclean."

"It is Superman's Fortress of Solitude?"

"A turd in the style of what happened at the Strasbourg station, but worse."

"We can add a parking ramp. Those are profitable."
 

Rigsby

Pelican
Gold Member
infowarrior1 said:
Rigsby said:
... my inane ramblings...

If brutalism can outdo the Catherine Palace in Russia and the Versailles Palace in France and the historic Notre Dame.

Then I will be a convert. But so far. Brutalist architecture has proven to be a near constant fail in terms of Aesthetics.

Unless its fails to be ugly and even looks sublime like the starry night sky. It will have its detractors.

The grey of its concrete has been one of the greatest contributors to its failure of aesthetics aside from lack of proper craftsmanship.

You are quite right! I wouldn't disagree with anything you have said.

I am not an advocate of Brutalism, just to be clear. But I do think it has 'something'. That it could be done much better in certain circumstances, that it might hold some 'function' as well as 'form', for the greater good.

I don't think it should be tossed aside, based on the serious failures that so far it has put forward. I agree. It's ugly. It's very often not functional. At it's best, it's 'close but no cigar'. See The Barbican. Expensive flats and quite nice to live in apparently if you can afford them. But it's not quite there... and that is one of the best examples.

https://www.dezeen.com/2014/09/13/brutalist-buildings-barbican-estate-chamberlin-powell-bon/

Brutalism: described by Queen Elizabeth as "one of the modern wonders of the world", the Barbican Estate in London is one of the largest examples of the Brutalist style and represents a utopian ideal for inner-city living.

I also like the Thamesmead estate.

https://failedarchitecture.com/ultr...n-the-enduring-myth-of-the-thamesmead-estate/

In one of the most famous scenes from Stanley Kubrick’s 1971 film A Clockwork Orange, the main character Alex and his gang of Droogs walk in menacing slow motion along the concrete banks of a modern estate.


But I always find them lacking. There is always something not 'quite right' about them. Thank god I don't have to live in them.

I will disagree on your last point though, somewhat:

The grey of its concrete has been one of the greatest contributors to its failure of aesthetics aside from lack of proper craftsmanship.

I like it.

But it's not for living in. For a family home. It is for studios, whether that be art or music. It is for inspiration. To take oneself out of the 'other'.

I just think it's an interesting avenue to pursue.

As I said, I'm not advocating for it, and pretty much agree with how you feel about it.

It holds some mystery for me.

These structures don't even need to be made out of concrete. They could be made up of more modern composites. I don't know. I do know that concrete has high compression strength whilst having low tension strength - so that is probably a major factor in its use.

Let me just google that so as I don't make a fool of myself:

Concrete has relatively high compressive strength, but significantly lower tensile strength. As a result, without compensating, concrete would almost always fail from tensile stresses – even when loaded in compression.

Well, almost got it right!

And there's no reason why it has to be grey. It could be white or black or pink or green! And those colour properties could be built in to the very manufacture of the composite materials themselves. I have no idea how feasible this is.

I think I like the square shapes, the perpendicular angles.

I think Lenny was on to something when he mentioned Minecraft!

The minute you start rounding off the edges, things stop fitting together so well in a modular fashion. Plus it takes time/energy/effort to round edges.

Building blocks, for building blocks might describe my love of 'Brutalism' better, in fact.

Just off to download Minecraft!

Then again, there is probably a good reason why the good folks of Coober Pedy don't live in square shaped caves!

https://www.google.com/search?q=Coo...xNjhAhXssaQKHWSVAB0Q_AUIDigB&biw=1920&bih=964


I guess we are back to that old compression strength vs. tensile strength thing again.

Who'd be an architect uh?
 

mikado

Pelican
No matter the cries of "Christianity! No muslims ! "Etc, Notre-Dame will be rebuilt according to the 21st century.

Meaning French culture, sensibility, and it will respect the French history and the French vision of the future. And as a Muslim I can say : It will be even more magnificent, and will magnify even more Christianism.

I dont believe in a God that has a son, but I can tell you that Neo- Notre-Dame will be even more marvelous. And that these crosses will be even more beautiful.
 

Rigsby

Pelican
Gold Member
Jetset said:
Rigsby said:
...
my inane ramblings
...

infowarrior1 said:
The grey of its concrete has been one of the greatest contributors to its failure of aesthetics aside from lack of proper craftsmanship.

To me, the failure of the brutalist designs I've seen is that it feels so self-referential, circular. Attempts to compress and release the space fail because there's often nothing to really release the observer to: just more of itself.

If you want to see grey concrete done thoughtfully and warmly, visit the Arizona Biltmore someday, a resort designed by a student of Frank Lloyd Wright:

[img=480x319]https://waldorfastoria3.hilton.com/...asic_content_item/WA_homepagexthl01.jpg[/img]

[img=640x336]https://www.arizonabiltmore.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/masthead-3-1920x1009.jpg[/img]

[img=560x294]https://www.arizonabiltmore.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/waldorf_biltmore_pool_1680x883.jpg[/img]

They had quite a bit of fun with how the light would interact with the property and it's strangely calming to walk around the grounds, and the "cave-like" feel really works for it. It pulls in enough of the landscape and of tradition that it's a bit like some old Pueblo man saw pictures of a Pompeii and decided to take his best shot at recreating it from memory.

I've bolded your words there of 'circular' and 'compress' because in my last post I kind of referenced those things. Different context maybe, but still, interesting use of language.

As for Frank Lloyd Wright, I'm a big fan of his work. He also did some shit, but he's got merit. I believe he has one if not two properties in North London, around the Hampstead/Highgate area where I once lived close by. I might be wrong. Pretty sure he has at least one place there he designed. It's not a big place either - it's a home. Beautiful.

I was going to mention Frank Lloyd Wright, but got sidetracked. Like Le Corbusier, he does these interesting, almost right, but not quite right structures that provoke the mind.

See his religious architecture:

[img=640x480]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/Sainte_Marie_de_La_Tourette_2007.jpg[/img]

The Convent of Sainte Marie de La Tourette (1953–1960)


Looks quite 'Brutalist' to me.

Le Corbusier used raw concrete to construct the convent, which is placed on the side of a hill. The three blocks of dormitories U, closed by the chapel, with a courtyard in the center. The Convent has a flat roof, and is placed on sculpted concrete pillars. Each of the residential cells has small loggia with a concrete sunscreen looking out at the countryside. The centerpiece of the convent is the chapel, a plain box of concrete, which he called his "Box of miracles." Unlike the highly finished façade of the Unité d'Habitation, the façade of the chapel is raw, unfinished concrete.


This is another interesting one:

[img=700x500]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...-Palace_of_Assembly_Chandigarh_2006.jpg[/img]


Interestingly there is mention of Le Corbusier on the Brutalism page:

In the 1955 essay, Reyner Banham also associated the term New Brutalism with Art Brut and Le Corbusier's béton brut, meaning raw concrete in French, for the first time.[2][6][7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture


but no mention of Brutalism on Le Corbusier's page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Corbusier

apart from a footnote reference.


Check out Frank Lloyd Wright's New York Island place:

[img=640x480]https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...3681/Petra_09_Living_Room-1-800x500.jpg[/img]


Click this link for many more examples:

https://www.google.com/search?q=fra...ydjhAhWDKVAKHSgWBAgQ_AUIDigB&biw=1920&bih=964

Again, I love it, I hate it. It hits so many sweet spots, but leaves so many things lacking.

If I could live half my life under ground in the "White Man's Burrow" * in Coober Pedy in the centre of Australia (just about), and the other half on this little island, I'd be happy. But it's certainly not perfect. Definitely could be improved upon.

* People moved to Coober Pedy to mine Opal. It's still one of the most lucrative places on the planet to mine this amazing 'stone'. Temperatures are insanely hot in the day time, so people built houses underground to protect them from the heat. But don't wander around outside when it's dark and you're pissed up, lest you fall down one of the many little 'mine holes' blown up by dynamite, that reach down 30 feet or more! So the story goes...


AU318Lounge_1.jpg
 

Alsos

Kingfisher
That rendering reminds me of seeing the plans for the Reichstag cupola for the first time. "Man, that's an abomination. Totally out of place and out of character with the historic building. Good thing it'll never be allowed to be built.”

My expectation is that it will be an ugly compromise, like the lantern structure on top of the Berlin Cathedral. Not an exact replacement, which would be appropriate, not something new and even more impressive in the same style as the building, which would be difficult, but a stripped-down, half-authentic-half-modernist-wholly-ugly hybrid, which would be cheap, easy, and in keeping with the passive-aggressive insult to aesthetics that is modern "art".
 

Rigsby

Pelican
Gold Member
MOVSM said:
Brutalist architecture will NEVER be beautiful. It is specifically designed to oppress and suppress the human spirit. It is meant to destroy the traditional, culture-specific architecture, and culture itself. It is the tool of the globalists and their foot soldiers, the cultural marxists and nihilists. Brutalism is architectural version of abstract modern art--an aesthetic terrorism.

You may be right!

But does it matter if it is beautiful?

I like ugly. It's in my aesthetic canon. I even like ugly women. But they have to be 'ugly' in just the right way. Not talking about 3-eyed hippos here!

But every now and again, some rare beauty crosses your path. Her nose might be sligthly too big, her eyes a colour that doesn't quite match the rest of her skin tone. Her teeth might be slightly too big. I'm playing it by ear here so stick with me.

However, the way it's all put together, whilst not 'correct' just gives off an interesting vibe. More than a plain jane, or some 9/10 who is clasically beautiful but far too full of shit.

I've only met and dated a few of these 'beauties' in my life, but I wish it could have been more.

Sometimes the idea of 'beauty' is in the eye of the beholder.

And even though it may only be 'skin deep', very often those girls might hold some other inner charms as well. I found the ones I 'dated' to be particularly interesting. They had to be.

But as for Brutalist architecture being a tool of an oppressive state - you might be right - but I think the original architects had nothing but high aspirations, as misguided as they were. As plain awful as they turned out to be. Witness the high rise blocks that sprouted up after WWII to rehouse masses of people where previously houses were laid, but blown to smithereens and now only housing great big fuck off holes. It was an improvement, but not much.

Plot to degrade the masses?

Maybe not so much. No more than usual anyway. They should have stopped when it was apparent that these high rises were hives and concrete jungles of crime and social disarray. But they didn't.

Don't confuse Brutalism as a concept with the travesty and the actual brutalization of a people with that particular architecture, if you can.

Still you might be right. But I think you are conflating two different concepts. See the massive high rises built in the former USSR (Russia) - the military towns that did nothing but build bombs/tanks. Where men went back to work after a hard day and beat up their wives while high on cheap vodka. See the ghost towns being built in China today for contractor's benefits. Only for no one to live there and for it all to be torn down in a bit.

Houses rise and fall.

In my beginning is my end.
In succession Houses rise and fall, crumble, are extended, Are removed, destroyed, restored...
 

Rigsby

Pelican
Gold Member
infowarrior1 said:
Architecture is physical music. As music is auditory architecture.

What makes classical music excellent sound architecture. Is what makes classical well done architecture excellent physical music.

Poetry!

If you study acoustics to any extent, it's pretty basic stuff that concrete and hard surfaces reflect sound much quicker and give off more 'Reverb'.

Ever clapped your hands in a tunnel and shouted 'hello'?

It's why people put 'Bass Traps' in the corner of their studio rooms, to 'trap' the errant 'standing waves' that build up and give a false impression. No one makes a Bass Trap out of concrete.

Certain places are known to have very bad acoustics, and bands dread playing there, others are known to have excellent acoustics and bands love playing there. But what is good for a band might not be so great for an Orchestra.

So your musing on What makes classical music excellent sound architecture. Is what makes classical well done architecture excellent physical music is not just poetry, it's also science, and a little art thrown in for good measure.
 

Rigsby

Pelican
Gold Member
Aurini said:
Part of the reason for this ugly architecture is the pride of your average citizen. The arrogance, the narcissism - the love of movies which whisper to the psyche "You're just like Ironman and Captain America, heroism doesn't require sacrifice, all men are equal, your opinion is as good as anyone else." I remember speaking to a Protestant who argued that having a church in a strip-mall was more beautiful than a Cathedral because "God is everywhere." I wouldn't be surprised if us Catholics have to move to the catacombs and living rooms within our lifetime, but even if we do, we'll make those places beautiful out of respect for the Father; not tawdry and entertaining like Protestant youth centres.

I agree with your first points, but sectarianism is still a problem here where we live, and no one wants to fan the flames, no matter what side they take. We don't mention the war. It's Christians against Christians after all. But I agree, we are all reflections of our environment. To a greater or lesser extent.



Aurini said:
The problem with beauty is that it humbles, as well as uplifts. All people recognize instinctually that Notre Dame is beautiful, almost unearthly in its beauty; but behold such beauty in person and regularly humbles oneself. When I see a typical modern church or home, I know that I could build it myself, with a few manuals; when I see a Cathedral like Notre Dame I'm awestruck by the sheer breadth of knowledge that went into it. It's not just the difficulty of the stone masonry, and the brilliance of the scaffolding crew - a building like that requires a deep understanding of mythology, Biblical scholarship, mathematics - and on and on. It is beyond me to create such a structure.

Yes it does. True beauty really does humble. We all know when we have been in the presence of it. Like a beautiful woman floating across a room, not parading around a room. She glides effortlessly, almost unaware of her charms, angelic like. Majestic.



Aurini said:
If we are to have beautiful cities, we require leaders who are elites, true elites, not the scheming mid-wits we have now. But in this era of mass-democracy and equality, where every man's opinion is equal to every other, elites are despised. Polymaths are derided. The mediocre, filled with pride, jealousy, and envy for their social betters, elect mediocre men and are then surprised that we have mediocre buildings.

We are led by the most spiteful and petty of men. See 'Trading Places'. We are all Dan Aykroyd in a Father Christmas suit stuffing big kippers down our 'grundies', while (((they))) make bets on who will crack or turn on each other first. We are an amusement, and so are the houses we live in.



Aurini said:
A return to hierarchy, and an acceptance of one's place in the hierarchy, is a prerequisite to having a beautiful and functional civilization. Your average man spits on his betters, and declares himself the equal to all of them. They rebel against God, and claim that every man can interpret scripture in his own way, creating a religion of man with the veneer of holiness. These people are rotting and dying, one by one, without God to sustain them. Once these wretches have been wiped from the slate, then - and only then - might we start rebuilding a civilization that's worthy of man and God. Until then, all we can do is practice humbleness, patience, and love.

I've learned my place. My relationship with God is fleeting. But when I 'get the feeling - that warm feeling' - I have no problem being humble. And I have no problem with being humble around other men too. But they have to be worthy. At the same time, I remember what Buddha said: bow your head to no man! Where I live, that isn't a problem. :)

But I can go along to get along. I'm not particularly clever. Not a great fighter. I'm pretty average and mediocre when it comes down to it. I know what I am and who I am. I'm ok with that.
 

Brother Abdul Majeed

Kingfisher
Catholic
Gold Member
https://www.foxnews.com/us/st-patricks-cathedral-new-york-city
Man caught with 2 gas cans entering St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC, police say

A man was taken into custody in New York after entering St. Patrick’s Cathedral carrying two canisters of gasoline, two bottles of lighter fluid and two butane lighters, authorities said.
The man, whose identity has not been released, was stopped by a security officer as he entered the cathedral, New York police said at an evening press conference. The man was told he could not enter with the gasoline. As he turned around some gasoline spilled onto the floor of the cathedral.

Investigators said it was too early to call the incident terrorism, but have yet to determine a motive for the man's actions.
Investigators said a "heavy police presence" was in the area of the church, which is located on Fifth Avenue in Midtown Manhattan
 

infowarrior1

Crow
Protestant
Rigsby said:
infowarrior1 said:
Architecture is physical music. As music is auditory architecture.

What makes classical music excellent sound architecture. Is what makes classical well done architecture excellent physical music.

Poetry!

If you study acoustics to any extent, it's pretty basic stuff that concrete and hard surfaces reflect sound much quicker and give off more 'Reverb'.

Ever clapped your hands in a tunnel and shouted 'hello'?

It's why people put 'Bass Traps' in the corner of their studio rooms, to 'trap' the errant 'standing waves' that build up and give a false impression. No one makes a Bass Trap out of concrete.

Certain places are known to have very bad acoustics, and bands dread playing there, others are known to have excellent acoustics and bands love playing there. But what is good for a band might not be so great for an Orchestra.

So your musing on What makes classical music excellent sound architecture. Is what makes classical well done architecture excellent physical music is not just poetry, it's also science, and a little art thrown in for good measure.

Agreed. I not only want impressive architecture but that the structures would sing when the wind blows through them.

I read a story about a vision a Mongolian had about Jesus coming down with the New Jerusalem made of Gold and precious stones more beautiful than all the buildings of Shanghai. In that vision the city emanates music as it descended from Heaven.

If buildings can sing as well as impress visually. Like as in a dream.
 

infowarrior1

Crow
Protestant
Aurini said:
I remember speaking to a Protestant who argued that having a church in a strip-mall was more beautiful than a Cathedral because "God is everywhere." I wouldn't be surprised if us Catholics have to move to the catacombs and living rooms within our lifetime, but even if we do, we'll make those places beautiful out of respect for the Father; not tawdry and entertaining like Protestant youth centres.

Bullshit really. He only needs to look in the OT to see that God himself commissioned the temple of Solomon through his revelation to David:
https://biblehub.com/bsb/1_chronicles/28.htm

and the Tent of Meeting as well as the vestments and sacred objects thereof.

The beauty of its craftsmanship is part of how God wanted to be glorified back in the day of Theocracy.

Even though the channel is Mormon this is nonetheless true(aside from the possible designs of the Cherubim):

So since God doesn't change why would he suddenly turn around and love crap strip-mall churches.

He would have more point talking about the importance of believers that make up the Temple of God over the church building.

He probably is also thinking of "beauty" in a non-physical sense whilst avoiding physical aspects of it as if he is associating it with carnality.
 

infowarrior1

Crow
Protestant

Handsome Creepy Eel

Owl
Catholic
Gold Member
mikado said:
No matter the cries of "Christianity! No muslims ! "Etc, Notre-Dame will be rebuilt according to the 21st century.

Meaning French culture, sensibility, and it will respect the French history and the French vision of the future. And as a Muslim I can say : It will be even more magnificent, and will magnify even more Christianism.

I dont believe in a God that has a son, but I can tell you that Neo- Notre-Dame will be even more marvelous. And that these crosses will be even more beautiful.


No matter the cries of "Islam! No christians ! "Etc, Masjid al-Haram will be rebuilt according to the 21st century.

Meaning Saudi culture, sensibility, and it will respect the Saudi history and the Saudi vision of the future. And as a Christian I can say : It will be even more magnificent, and will magnify even more Islam.

I dont believe in a God that doesn't have a son, but I can tell you that Neo- Masjid al-Haram will be even more marvelous. And that these minarets will be even more beautiful.

Thank you for this amazingly thoughtful and respectful post.
 
Top