Grayson wrote: » To be fair when it comes to historical buildings we normally love them because of how old they are and what they've been through rather than the religion associated with them. Think of the pyramids or new grange. It's not like either of those buildings are associated with active religions. I don't like the church but I wouldn't want Notre dame, or Christchurch or anything like them to burn down. (Although I will say there were a few churches that were built in the 70's-80's there were abominations and wouldn't be missed).
Sofia Damaged Lodging wrote: » I guess we shouldn't worry if the Pyramids, the Acropolis, and the Colosseum are all gone tomorrow, either. Nobody should care about any of our built heritage, according to you. I'm sure you'd be fine with demolishing the GPO, Dublin Castle, and Christchurch Cathedral while we're at it.
Anteayer wrote: » All of these buildings represent a lot more than the name above the door. They're huge achievements in terms of art, culture, architecture, engineering and sheer human ingenuity. That building represents the state-of-the-art in terms of human technology of its time. It has been everything from one of the most high and powerful seats of the Catholic Church at the peak of an absolute and theocratic monarchy, where it hosted coronations and all sorts demonstrations of the pomp and power of that regime. It's been at the heart of an empire and saw an idealistic Republic lose its way with the coronation of Napoleon Bonaparte. It has also been humbled by being through the revolution, during which time it was actually dismantled and turned into a Temple of Reason for a while. It's even been left to rot and even used as a food storage warehouse. It's been through 20th century wars. Notre Dame Cathedral has evolved into a far more human place. It's a seat of a modern Catholic Church and it coexists, very comfortably with all sorts of other views in a secular republic and it is a massive draw to people who want to appreciate it for what it is - a religious, cultural, architectural and engineering icon that is also a symbol of an ancient city that has existed for millennia through good and bad times both economically and philosophically. It's stood for most of a millennia and will probably still be standing in another thousand years and will probably have witnessed multiple incarnations of Paris, of France, of Europe and of the church too.
[Deleted User] wrote: » How do you feel about Eircom? You could request a username change now that you're not shackled to the past.
Ave Sodalis wrote: » I'm really struggling to see your point in this post. Would you mind clearing it up?
Eircom_Sucks wrote: » Again doesn’t bother me A name don’t define me
Corby Trouser Press wrote: Your reading comprehension issues aren't my problem.
Ave Sodalis wrote: » Ah come on. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt because things get picked up wrong. No need for a sh*tty post in response.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » There is little built in that era that would be missed with some exceptions ( like the Sydney Opera house). At least modern late 20C architecture, which has its flaws, has produced some interesting buildings. And yet a building stands on its own merits. You don't have to like absolute monarchy to wish no harm on Versailles.
Fastidious wrote: » Hahahahahahaahaha Times they are changing, glory be to god. This just goes to demonstrate the materialism that plagues the Catholic Church.. it begs the question why these cathedrals were built in the first place cause I've no doubt that this isn't what Jesus wouldve wanted. C'est seulement un bâtiment! Blaming the English for the decline in religion is just blatant racism. It's laughable
Corby Trouser Press wrote: » I thought it fairly self explanatory. Scant acknowledgement of it's religious significance from Ireland or UK. It has actually contrasted quite drastically from the US reaction. Even CNN, Pelosi, Hillary Clinton putting the religious element front and centre in their acknowledgements.
Corby Trouser Press wrote: Scant acknowledgement of it's religious significance from Ireland or UK. It has actually contrasted quite drastically from the US reaction.
Grayson wrote: » I like the way you limited it to modern late 20C Let's not mention hawkins house and busarus. I like religious buildings. I've been to churches, mosques and temples all around the world. Being an secular atheist doesn't limit the ability to love history, architecture and archaeology.
Deleted User wrote: » You're a 5th year student doing the Leaving in 2020. I most definitely think your opinion here is worth literal shlt. Come back to these posts when you're 30 and you'll cringe so hard, you'll permanently damage your face.
Ave Sodalis wrote: » Yes I understood your meaning, but so? America is still a very religious country. Ireland is secular. As already discussed on this thread, a building such as Notre Dame is more than just a church.
Snow Garden wrote: » Woah there horsey! I am not too concerned about your particular beef with Fastidious. I do take exception at the inference that young people cannot have worthwhile opinions. I have worked with 5th year students that have better insights than the majority of people over 40.
Corby Trouser Press wrote: » Yes it is much more then a Church, a place of massive cultural and historical significance. But it is still/(will be again!) a functioning Church. Seems to pain many of the strictly secular mindset to acknowledge that... including our Head of State and Head of Government.
Eircom_Sucks wrote: » Nope They all irrelevant to me , life for future not the past
Corby Trouser Press wrote: Seems to pain many of the strictly secular mindset to acknowledge that... including our Head of State and Head of Government.
Corby Trouser Press wrote: » Not "blaming" anyone... just stating a fact. We are culturally subsumed by UK media. It was built for the Glory of God, to paraphrase yourself, not as a monument to man's ingenuity.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » Busarus is alright. In fact the problem is in the 70's which is when Hawkin's house was built.
Strumms wrote: » Regardless of the intent of its being there, for the glory of god or the glory of mascarpone cheese... most people see it as a feat of beautiful architecture and by proxy a feat of mans ingenuity. That’s a fact.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » I'd mourn the Taj Mahal if it burnt to the ground
RobertKK wrote: » It was beautiful to hear the people singing hymns as their hearts wept in sorrow to see their church on fire. I found that particularly moving.
jasper100 wrote: » Seriously. All these singers are probably just jumping on the bandwagon. I bet most of them would pass a beggar a thousand times outside that church and never give them a penny. Hypocrisy on a global scale.
Snow Garden wrote: » Taj Mahal is in big trouble already.https://www.businessinsider.com/taj-mahal-under-threat-of-demolition-due-to-neglect-and-pollution-2018-7 To be honest the area around the Taj Mahal is an absolutely kip. So much pollution and rubbish.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e0a528cbc0a6c66fda22b51f3da0d9d1.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bed6f1d088326d5eb21c0139847332c7.svg)
