[HN Gopher] The Church FAQ
___________________________________________________________________
The Church FAQ
Author : nivethan
Score : 298 points
Date : 2025-03-14 02:00 UTC (21 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (whatever.scalzi.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (whatever.scalzi.com)
| rfarley04 wrote:
| I don't want for much and don't need much more money than I
| currently have, I used to say before reading this
| jasonthorsness wrote:
| The church cost only $75,000; because it is here:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford,_Ohio
|
| If you work remotely, this seems a good example of why you
| might consider moving away from a major city.
| rfarley04 wrote:
| I live in Bangkok. So I'm over here searching for abandoned
| Buddhist temples lol
| bawolff wrote:
| So its about 45 minutes (by car) from a city of about 130,000
| people.
|
| That's hardly the middle of nowhere.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| For a lot of people, "45 minutes by car to get to a city of
| any real size" is very much in the middle of nowhere.
| jes5199 wrote:
| and yet plenty of people have a commute _within_ the city
| that is longer than that
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Oh for sure, but they're still 'somewhere' while
| commuting.
| jes5199 wrote:
| I would so much prefer an hour on a rural highway over an
| hour stuck in city traffic!
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| Those people very badly need some perspective, then. That
| is not _remotely_ the middle of nowhere.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| It just depends on your perspective.
|
| Honestly, Americans are probably more tolerant and
| accepting of long distances compared to most peer
| countries. 45 minutes of driving to hit some kind of city
| is very far most of the time in Japan or most of Europe,
| where the population density is higher than the states.
| froh wrote:
| that again depends on where you are in Europe... in most
| of Germany you're right. large parts of Norway Sweden
| Finland? not so much...
| apelapan wrote:
| It is probably true that in a majority of those land
| areas (Finland, Sweden, Norway) you are more than 45
| minutes of driving from the next proper city.
|
| However, the proportion of people who live like that is
| not very high. People mostly live where other people
| live.
| jrmg wrote:
| Growing up in the UK, 45 minutes was about the 'if we're
| going there in the evening we're going to need to get a
| hotel' boundary. Now I live in the US it's a short drive.
|
| It's amazing how perspective changes. If you haven't
| experienced it I suspect it's impossible to understand,
| because this feels crazy to write. It's true though.
| pavon wrote:
| Branford is within 15 minutes of Piqua and Greensville
| which are both mid-sized towns that have everything you
| need for everyday life, and a lot of what you'd want. To
| me that is much more relevant than how far it is to a
| large city, which you would be visiting much less
| frequently. 15 minutes is a normal commuting time within
| a city, so not really the middle of nowhere.
| globular-toast wrote:
| I lived in a place that was a 30 min drive from a similar
| sized place (Cambridge, UK). It totally felt like the
| middle of nowhere. It's not so much about the numbers but
| about the feeling of a place:
|
| * No transport links means total dependence on car,
|
| * No natural features of any note, in particular no rivers
| or hills,
|
| * Unknown to people outside of the very small population
| that lives there,
|
| * Hard to convince people to come and visit you and when
| they do they're disappointed.
| rsynnott wrote:
| All a matter of perspective, I suppose. I'd call that the
| middle of nowhere, but I've always lived either in a
| medium-sized (>1 million people) city or its suburbs.
|
| In particular it doesn't seem to have public transport at
| _all_, at least per Google Maps; I'd consider anywhere
| where your only option to get to a city was to drive to be
| serious middle of nowhere, though I gather that this is a
| more common condition in the US.
| viraptor wrote:
| If you wanted to actually use it day to day though, it would
| cost so much more. Just the temperature control for such area
| would be either super expensive or require a complete
| redesign of the space to split it into lower floors.
| tengwar2 wrote:
| It would, but that's partly a matter of size, and a large
| house will cost a lot to heat or cool as well. I'm in the
| UK (cool climate), and there are a lot of smaller chapels
| which have been converted to use as houses quite
| successfully.
| rsynnott wrote:
| While he doesn't explicitly say it, I'm going to bet that the
| renovation, and likely even just the essential parts (roof,
| rewiring etc) of the renovation cost considerably more than
| that.
| loeg wrote:
| Yeah, but still. On the coasts that would be a $1.5M+
| property.
| astura wrote:
| Only in the most desirable of desirable areas. I live on
| the east coast (almost literally, only a few blocks from
| the ocean) and a similar church sold last year in the
| town next door for just over $300,000.
| organsnyder wrote:
| Yeah, the renovations they describe are easily over
| $100,000--probably multiples of that.
|
| (I live in Michigan, so I'm assuming project costs would be
| similar to where I am)
| wewewedxfgdf wrote:
| Disappointing he says he is not using it to start a cult. I'd
| start a cult. Church building first, cult second.
| rfarley04 wrote:
| If you're starting a cult, always build instead of buy!
| bigiain wrote:
| Hmmm, if you're starting a cult as a way to tap into tax
| exemptions, I suspect your accountants and lawyers would have
| long heated arguments about exactly how to best structure the
| church building ownership or lease/rental. Is your cult's
| meeting place a capex or an opex?
| krapp wrote:
| If you want to start a cult to get out of taxes, forget the
| church - you need a boat.
| rsynnott wrote:
| I mean the most notorious example very much had both.
| fraserphysics wrote:
| Consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Mansion. My
| great great grandfather lived there till he jumped to his
| death from Brown's Hotel in London. See Richard Cory.
| timmg wrote:
| If you wanted to start a cult, would you say you wanted to
| start a cult?
|
| "I just want to share my learnings with the good people of
| Ohio..."
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| Nah I think the Lean method would be to start the cult first,
| prove product-market fit, then get the church once you have
| around 10 members
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| but you get the money before you even have any idea of your
| actual tenants and beliefs. slide deck -> money -> cult ->
| bodies -> church
| mnemotronic wrote:
| Been done. It's called scientology.
| schoen wrote:
| > Not "Church of the Scalzi," which is actually the name of a
| church in Venice, Italy.
|
| Oh right, "scalzi" means 'barefoot' (mpl) in Italian!
|
| https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scalzo#Italian
| bruce511 wrote:
| I've noticed something, and I don't know if it's too much of a
| generalization but I see it a fair bit, so maybe it's generally
| true.
|
| Generally speaking, non-religious people understand church to be
| a building. Whereas religious people understand that the people
| _are_ the church, the building is just a building.
|
| Now granted some of them are really nice buildings, and some are
| really old, and you can be both religious _and_ really like the
| building, but the two concepts are still separate.
|
| In other words, to the religious, the use of the building for
| non-religious purposes is "shrug".
|
| Whereas to the non-religious the idea of turning a church
| building into something else is some kind of desecration.
| (Obviously this isn't the case for this article, but I noted the
| first question as him getting that response, and also the
| immediate rebuttal that he's starting a cult.)
|
| Anyway, I thought it an interesting, if tangentially observation.
| And as with all generalizations there will be lots of exceptions.
| saghm wrote:
| It's possible that this is generally true, but that's
| definitely not my perception. Growing up I remember hearing
| about stories like this [0] where people camped out in a church
| for over a decade to try to stop it from being closed. As
| someone who isn't religious, I still can't understand the level
| of attachment to the building itself, and it's hard to imagine
| that this would happen from people not ascribing some sort of
| religious significance to the building itself. That said, I
| know that there are some notable differences between Catholics
| and other Christians in terms of veneration, so maybe this
| perception is just due to my growing up in an area where other
| types of Christianity weren't as common, and elsewhere in the
| country where Catholics aren't as common, the generalization
| would hold more true.
|
| [0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/massachusetts-church-
| protest-11...
| irrational wrote:
| I wonder if it is similar to people who camp out in trees to
| keep them from being cut down. Maybe it is the same sort of
| veneration in both cases?
| mock-possum wrote:
| "No, stop, this important."
| mmooss wrote:
| > Whereas religious people understand that the people are the
| church, the building is just a building.
|
| Many (most?) religions invest enormous amounts in those
| buildings, some with staggering displays of wealth. Even in
| many/most towns, the religious institution is the nicest
| building around.
| nyokodo wrote:
| > In other words, to the religious, the use of the building for
| non-religious purposes is "shrug".
|
| This isn't accurate except for perhaps certain parts of
| Protestantism. To Catholics, Orthodox, probably portions of the
| Church of England etc, ie a majority of Christianity church
| buildings are holy and specially blessed. They hold the
| Eucharist in the Tabernacle which these Churches believe is the
| body and blood of Jesus under the guise of bread which is the
| _most_ holy thing for them. In order for these buildings to be
| used for any other purpose all the holy things would need to be
| removed and the building specifically deconsecrated.
| jes5199 wrote:
| sure but a church building that hasn't been used in years
| surely was already deconsecrated
| cvoss wrote:
| You're kind of proving the point. The building is not the
| real thing, as any sense in which it is holy (which is a word
| that means set apart for a special purpose) can be readily
| undone. The church doesn't cease to exist when that happens.
| It moves. The same way the Tabernacle (the ancient
| Tabernacle) moved, which happened on a semi-regular basis.
| The place is less important than who is there.
| ForTheKidz wrote:
| Surely if the church was _just_ the people such a ritual of
| consecration would have fallen by the wayside a long time
| ago.
|
| Anyway, there are in fact many christians who view churches
| as sacred in themselves. Good luck painting christianity
| with any such a wide brush.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| The inclusion of the word "just" makes this comment not
| so relevant to the discussion. Nobody is claiming that.
| ForTheKidz wrote:
| I'm afraid i'm missing the point of the entire
| conversation, then. Nobody was claiming church was just a
| building to begin with either.
| mock-possum wrote:
| It seems like this is confusing The Church with a church.
|
| Notre Dame Cathedral is a church, but you could burn it to
| the ground tomorrow and it wouldn't have hardly any impact
| at all on the persistence of The Church.
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| Such is claimed, but I suspect that this is a misleading
| truth. Christianity is an extremely successful religion,
| but if it were less popular and Notre Dame was one of
| only a few church buildings (even, just one of a few with
| that level of grandeur), then burning it to the ground
| would indeed have a profound impact on the persistence of
| _The Church_. For those religions with a single temple,
| the destruction of that building is more than merely
| traumatic, it is catastrophic. Christianity only avoids
| this by having so very many buildings, many of them as
| spectacular as Notre Dame.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| In the NT and early history of the [Catholic] church it was
| explicitly the people and not the building.
| umanwizard wrote:
| Perhaps, but that was 2000 years ago and not necessarily
| identical to how people feel/believe today.
| PaulRobinson wrote:
| Your interpretation of "people and not the building" is
| pretty unique to Protestantism in the Christian belief, and
| arguably the central tenet of Methodism. It is absent in
| much of the history of Christian (and most other
| monotheistic) beliefs.
|
| I recommend you look at (as an example), what the Catholic
| Church did since around the conversion of the Romans
| through to Vatican II. Even when I was a kid (some decades
| after Vatican II), attending Catholic school and regularly
| attending mass, the Catholic Church building was considered
| an incredibly special place by the congregations.
|
| In my school, the chapel (which held a tabernacle), was
| once used by some well-meaning but incredibly ill-educated
| pupils to hold a palm reading booth for a school fete
| fundraiser. When the more traditional Catholics in the
| faculty found out, they burst in, soaking the pupils and
| chapel with holy water and latin prayer (first time used in
| the school since Vatican II! Showed their colours that
| day!), claiming that to engage in the occult near a
| tabernacle was an incredibly offensive thing to do, because
| the space held a tabernacle, end of.
|
| The whole thing about Protestantism is to remove mystery.
| Research the early history from Luther through the English
| Tudors and the King James Bible, all the way through to the
| Mayflower and the reason why they were fleeing Europe to
| the New World, and you'll see that big and plain. It
| doesn't mean that a sense of mystery in terms of rituals
| and rites held in special designated spaces died and went
| away though, it just means it's less present than it once
| was.
|
| For many, many people (billions on Earth today), "holy
| spaces" remain exactly that: consecrated spaces that are in
| themselves holy regardless of whether a human congregation
| is present or not. And this is not limited to Christianity
| either.
|
| As this was a Methodist Church, I suspect most people who
| used it would consider it "just a building", albeit one
| with sentimental memories (weddings, funerals, weekly
| worship), but sure, it's bricks and mortar and balconies
| and pews and a broken organ. _shrug_.
|
| It's just that's actually quite an unusual viewpoint on a
| global scale, for most denominations.
| apelapan wrote:
| Catholics abandon and sell church buildings all the time.
| Once you've removed a small handful of sacred items and
| done the de-consecration-ritual, it is "just a building"
| to them too.
|
| There are vast numbers of repurposed churches in Catholic
| countries. Just walk the streets in an Italian city.
|
| I'm not familiar with the specifics for catholics, but it
| is conceptually not too different from how protestants do
| it.
|
| With the caveat, best repeated in every post under this
| article, that of course very strong sentimental feelings
| can be attached to a church building. You could put a
| religious dimension on the morality of hurting peoples
| feelings by destroying or changing a beautiful thing I
| guess. But, it is not the house itself that is holy in a
| holy house.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| I'm eastern orthodox so not part of one of the groups
| you're talking about but we share a lot with catholics so
| maybe close enough.
|
| The reaction you're talking about with the palm reading
| seems like it could have mostly been because of the
| presence of a loaded tabernacle? I mean I doubt they
| would have been pleased about this without it but lay
| catholics I know take the tabernacle extremely seriously.
|
| I don't particularly, aesthetically, _like_ to see
| churches used for secular purposes but if they 've been
| properly desacralized I don't have any strong religious
| objections.
|
| > "holy spaces" remain exactly that: consecrated spaces
| that are in themselves holy regardless of whether a human
| congregation is present or not
|
| This is true but it implies a causality that is backwards
| I think. Spaces aren't holy because of the consecration,
| they're holy because of the people that come there to
| worship together regularly over many years. If they stop
| doing that the church doesn't immediately "lose its
| holiness" or whatever but it does change: it becomes a
| shrine or a relic or maybe just a building.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| Yup I'm gonna second this one. I grew up in Cologne and
| Christians here generally don't think the Cologne Cathedral
| [1] (which holds among other things, according to the Church
| the bones of the three magi) is "just a building" and if you
| wanted to argue to turn it into a mall next week you'd
| probably get a pretty strong reaction from members of the
| church
|
| [1] https://www.wandererscompass.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2024/08/...
| williamdclt wrote:
| If you wanted to turn the cathedral of cologne into a mall
| you'd get a pretty strong reaction from _me_, who's neither
| religious nor has ever been to Cologne!
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| >if you wanted to argue to turn it into a mall next week
| you'd probably get a pretty strong reaction from members of
| the church
|
| Even us atheists should hope that the building would get a
| little more love and respect than that.
| mock-possum wrote:
| Growing up Methodist, we learned it via church camp
| singalong:
|
| A church is not a building
|
| A church is not a steeple
|
| A church is not a resting place
|
| A church is a people
|
| I am the church
|
| You are the church
|
| We are the church together
|
| All who follow Jesus
|
| All around the world
|
| Yes were the church to-clap!-gether.
|
| I don't believe in any of it anymore, but it's still a nice
| sentiment - the only thing I really miss about Christianity
| is the community.
| dingnuts wrote:
| same -- maybe you should look into the Quakers, they're
| basically a denomination that is only community and sans
| doctrine, is my understanding. I only haven't followed this
| advice for bad reasons
| swat535 wrote:
| The Church building is only considered Holy when Christ is
| considered present for Eucharist. Should it be removed along
| with the Altar, it only becomes a building, to Catholics at
| least. This is why abandon Churches can be converted to other
| things, in Montreal there are examples of these buildings.
|
| OP is correct here by saying that the Church is the people.
| It's just that the word has two meanings, the church building
| and the Church of Christ.
|
| It's also why sometimes you hear Christians say things like
| "your family is also your Church"
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| According to canon law, a Catholic church must be
| desacralized (or deconsecrated) in order to be licitly used
| for other, though not just any, purposes[0].
|
| [0] https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/when-a-church-
| is-de...
| nickpsecurity wrote:
| Yes, the Word of God says the "church" is either the whole set
| of all believers in Jesus Christ or a local group of them. It's
| people who together make up His "body" while He is the "head."
| Example verses:
|
| https://www.gotquestions.org/what-is-the-church.html
|
| False teaching that contradicts God's Word often tries to
| elevate specific people or buildings while the Word elevates
| Christ. Over time, more religions started focusing a lot on
| their buildings. They identified as Christian even though their
| practices were getting further and further from Biblical
| examples. This caused much confusion.
|
| Our church would just call it an old building that used to
| house a church (group of people). Hopefully, the members are
| still gathering to worship God, read the Word, share Christ,
| and love each other. Those are what's important.
| HeatrayEnjoyer wrote:
| This depends greatly on the denomination. Pious Catholics
| care greatly about their church buildings.
| nickpsecurity wrote:
| I was only talking about Christians that put God's Word
| center. Catholicism is a different, church-centered faith
| that came later.
|
| For example, in Christianity, they only venerate God and
| pray to God through Jesus alone. Peter and Hebrews says we
| are all priests who have direct access to God, coming
| boldly, as His adopted sons and daughters. Jesus also
| represents us before God with nobody else really needed.
|
| Whereas, Catholicism taught people to venerate and pray to
| mere humans. They pray to Mary hoping she will represent
| them, too. That's idolatry in God's Word. It's also
| something we don't see Apostles or believers doing.
|
| I noted below numerous such reasons that Catholicism is a
| different religion which Jesus and the Apostles call false
| teaching. That is, anything that contradicts their Gospel
| of justification by faith in Christ alone worshiping God
| alone.
|
| https://www.gethisword.com/catholic
|
| Deuteronomy requires testing any person or claim that
| allegedly comes from God. They had to have supernatural
| power and never contradict God's Word. The Pope's fail that
| test while Apostles passed it. To be obedient, I tested it
| myself above.
| irrational wrote:
| Is it the difference between a church building and a temple?
| The Romans would put a wall (or it could have been a ditch)
| around some ground. The wall was called a fanum. That which was
| outside of the fanum was called the profanum (pro = before) or
| profane. Inside the fanum was sacred or holy ground where the
| sanctuary was situated. We see this kind of think in Greek
| Temples, Egyptian Temples, the Temple of Solomon, etc. Perhaps
| some people view their church buildings similar to how ancients
| viewed their temples.
| pmezard wrote:
| > In other words, to the religious, the use of the building for
| non-religious purposes is "shrug".
|
| Try that in a mosque please.
|
| Also, a couple of years ago a French (Benjamin Ledig)
| youtuber/tiktoker/whatever was fined for filming himself
| dancing in a parisian catholic church.
|
| As you said:
|
| > And as with all generalizations there will be lots of
| exceptions.
| syklemil wrote:
| > Generally speaking, non-religious people understand church to
| be a building. Whereas religious people understand that the
| people are the church, the building is just a building.
|
| The word "church" itself _is_ used to refer to the building in
| several languages; some of the buildings get some fancier word
| like "cathedral" or "dom church" or just "dom", like the
| Kolnerdom or Nidarosdomen. It's a type of building the same way
| that you expect certain things of a Rathaus or office building
| or detached house.
|
| Of course, it is also used to refer to what in secular contexts
| would be called a club or organization, like "the church of
| $country". E.g. if you want Norwegian waffles abroad,
| Sjomannskirken (literally "The seamen's church") is very likely
| to have them. Norwegian churches-as-organizations run partially
| on coffee & waffles.
|
| The only other group I can think of off the top of my head that
| get called the same as a building is parliament? While with
| churches it's kind of as if we used just one word to describe a
| football field, the football team, and that football team's
| supporters. Homonyms can trip people up.
|
| So for people who aren't in the organization, but know that
| people associated with that kind of organization take umbrage
| at a lot of things that they can't easily predict, it's no
| wonder that churches-the-buildings have mental priority because
| that's what they actually experience in their daily lives:
| Buildings that exist in their vicinity, that often represent a
| sizable investment, and that they might even get invited to for
| some rituals like marriages and funerals. The ... Jesus club is
| about as visible to them as a local role-playing club, or
| indoor sports club.
| umanwizard wrote:
| > The word "church" itself is used to refer to the building
| in several languages
|
| Including English, for that matter.
| graemep wrote:
| There are many meanings. Off the top of my head:
|
| 1. church meaning a building 2. church meaning an organisation
| - e.g. "Roman Catholic Church" 3. church militant - all
| Christians on earth 4. church triumphant - all of redeemed
| humanity. If you are a universalist (someone who believes all
| of humanity is saved) this would be synonymous with all of
| humanity.
|
| I am sure I have missed things out, and there are lots of
| shades of meaning and different levels with regard to
| organisations.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| You're a bit off here.
|
| First, everyone (faithful or not) understands that "church"
| could mean physical structure or the body of people who attend.
| The word was frequently used both ways in my Southern Baptist
| youth, for example, and I'm familiar with similar use patterns
| from the Catholics I've known.
|
| HOWEVER it IS true that some flavors of Christianity DO see the
| physical building as blessed, consecrated, or whatever, and
| somehow important in and of itself. It varies WIDELY by faith;
| neither position is universal at all.
|
| My sense is that GENERALLY this distinction maps to the
| adherence to/belief in actual sacraments -- ie, rituals written
| out and led by specific clergy that lead to desirable spiritual
| goals.
|
| The Roman church, for example, has a number of these that are
| considered important to your spiritual life. For a faithful
| Catholic, Communion involves actual transubstantiation, and
| requires the priest. You're probably not truly married unless
| you're married in a Catholic ceremony by a priest in a church.
| Confession matters. Etc.
|
| By contrast, most mainline protestant churches don't really
| have any of these. Your relationship to God is between you and
| God; the pastor leads the church, but is not seen as someone
| with a hotline to the almighty.
|
| Many or most of them DO things that look like Communion, but
| it's entirely symbolic; the act itself has no special spiritual
| power, and there is no expectation of transubstantiation. It's
| done maybe quarterly largely because the Gospels say Jesus said
| to "do this in remembrance of me."
|
| Most protestant sects don't think a church wedding has any
| additional spiritual weight, and certainly don't require one.
| Marriage is between you, your spouse, and God. I went to a
| Baptist wedding on a golf course last fall where the officiant
| was the groom's nonclergy (but devout) uncle. That's normal.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| > non-religious people understand church to be a building.
| Whereas religious people understand that the people are the
| church
|
| "Church" is equivocal [0]. It can mean "a church" as in a
| building used for liturgical worship (and specifically, the
| sacrifice of the mass). It can mean the institution founded by
| Christ, a divine and universal (hence "catholic" [1]) society,
| in which case we tend to capitalize it in English. In this
| latter case, theologically, we can speak of the human and
| divine elements, where the human (here on earth, the so-called
| _Ecclesia militans_ or "Church Militant") is afflicted by the
| ravages of sin, while the divine dimension remains
| indefectible. The totality of the Church also includes the
| _Ecclesia poenitens_ ( "Church Penitent", "Church Expectant",
| or "Church Suffering") and the _Ecclesia triumphans_ ( "Church
| Triumphant").
|
| (As a footnote, people in countries with a Christian heritage
| sometimes commit fallacies of equivocation with respect to
| these two meanings. This leads to some absurd inferences. For
| example, proponents of secularism have sometimes called for the
| separation of "mosque and state" in Muslim countries in an
| attempt to mirror the liberal exaggeration of the Christian
| _distinction_ between Church and State, but this is
| nonsensical. "Mosque" has only one meaning, namely, the
| building. There is no institutional "Mosque". Islam does not
| make a distinction between religious and secular authority
| (which has its roots in Matthew 22:21 [2]). In the Islamic
| worldview, there is only Islam - "submission" [3] - and the
| unconquered world of the infidels. Liberalism is,
| genealogically and as a matter of substance, a Christian heresy
| - something it shares with Islam - but one that is alien to the
| Islamic worldview. The secular/Islamic divide in the
| traditionally Islamic world is rather a result of Western
| geopolitical influence, an arrangement merely tolerated, for
| the time being at least, by devout Muslims.)
|
| > to the religious, the use of the building for non-religious
| purposes is "shrug".
|
| Perhaps for some Protestants, but Catholic churches are not
| simply meeting houses, but the successors of the Temple of
| Jerusalem where the perfect sacrifice of the mass is offered
| (the liturgy itself has the structure of the liturgy used in
| the Temple). It is most certainly not a "shrug".
|
| > Whereas to the non-religious the idea of turning a church
| building into something else is some kind of desecration.
|
| I don't understand. To non-religious people who do not
| recognize a religion's truth claims, it appears that there is
| nothing to desecrate. Catholics/Orthodox most certainly would
| consider the illicit use of a church as desecration (example:
| the man who recently climbed onto the main altar in St. Peter's
| Basilica).
|
| [0] https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm
|
| [1] https://www.etymonline.com/word/catholic
|
| [2]
| https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022%3A...
|
| [3] https://www.etymonline.com/word/Islam
| furyofantares wrote:
| It's just two different words, I feel like most people
| recognize both.
| october8140 wrote:
| I live in Detroit and don't understand why everyone wants to work
| remove AND live in the most expensive places in the world. To me
| working remote means I can live anywhere I want. Why not live
| where you get a lot more for your money?
| crooked-v wrote:
| It's very simple: they like the benefits of living in the
| expensive places, as distinct from closeness to work in
| particular.
| abound wrote:
| As a remote tech worker who moved from the Bay to a (much)
| cheaper place - I agree that the expensive places are
| expensive for a reason - but if one can articulate what
| specifically they're looking for, it's almost always possible
| to find it in a significantly cheaper cost-of-living area.
| mmooss wrote:
| > if one can articulate what specifically they're looking
| for, it's almost always possible to find it in a
| significantly cheaper cost-of-living area.
|
| Isn't that the basic essential of designing tech - the
| narrower your specs the less expensive your solution, so
| articulate them very specifically.
|
| I don't know that I buy "almost always" though. If your
| spec is world-class _____, you probably need to be in one
| of a few cities.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| I'm not sure that's true. I occasionally look around and
| can't really find anything all that cheap that fits my
| preferences, but maybe I'm too picky.
|
| * Politically blue or at least purple
|
| * Reasonably dense/transitable by something other than a
| car (public transit and/or bike)
|
| * Wide variety of restaurants/groceries (mostly in terms of
| ethnicities/cultures), especially Asian food
|
| * Low(-ish) crime rate
|
| The third one is maybe the hardest, because it basically
| requires a substantial population, though number 2 is
| pretty hard in the US as well.
| mmooss wrote:
| > Why not live where you get a lot more for your money?
|
| People live in expensive places not because they are required
| to, but because they find these places appealing. There are
| much more arts, culture, food, smart people, better schools,
| etc. Look at the prices people are willing to pay to live in
| NYC, parts of the Bay Area, etc. That is supply and demand.
|
| They are getting a lot more (of what they want) for their
| money. Others live in Aspen for the same reason - though they
| want different things. I hope you are fortunate enough to want
| things that aren't in quite so high demand.
| keiferski wrote:
| That's the stated reason, but it doesn't factor in social
| trends and just general imitative behavior. In my experience
| the vast majority of people want to live in popular cities
| because other people want to live there, not because they've
| done a rational analysis of the differences in food, culture,
| etc.
|
| "Hacking" this by figuring out exactly what you want and
| finding it in a less in-demand place is a great move if you
| work remotely.
| bawolff wrote:
| > In my experience the vast majority of people want to live
| in popular cities because other people want to live there,
| not because they've done a rational analysis of the
| differences in food, culture, etc.
|
| Isn't that the "culture" of the city? People want to live
| there because they want to be near the other cool people
| who live there. Culture means much more than if it has an
| art gallery.
| keiferski wrote:
| I wouldn't define culture as "I want to live in a place
| because other people want to live in a place."
|
| Sure, absolutely larger cities have more cultural events
| going on, but in my experience most people aren't
| analyzing the different options _and_ aren't utilizing
| all of those amenities when they actually live there.
|
| New York is a classic example. A lot of people say they
| move there to be closer to museums, but most only end up
| visiting them once or twice a year, at most. This is
| because they like the idea, the perception, of being a
| person that lives in a city with the MET and MoMa, etc.
|
| I really like NYC, for reference, so I'm not putting down
| the city or other large cities. But there is also a ton
| of hype and imitative behavior that makes people focus
| exclusively on the coastal cities. There are plenty of
| cities across America which have hip arts districts,
| coffee shops, great museums, nice architecture, etc. etc.
| but they tend to be glossed over.
| jrowen wrote:
| At the end of the day, it's tough to live in a place like
| SF or NYC. A lot of people get weeded out. In my
| experience with living in SF, the people I know who
| continue to live there do so because they genuinely love
| it and wouldn't want to be anywhere else.
|
| Most people aren't going to continue to put up with the
| costs and challenges of big city life if they actually
| don't care all that much and could be just as happy in
| whatever places you're suggesting.
| relaxing wrote:
| Well, you're wrong. Culture is by definition social
| behavior first, and then institutions arise out of that.
|
| Beyond that key point, you're making an error of assuming
| there is one fungible "culture experience" that can be
| had anywhere there's a gallery and a coffee shop on the
| same street.
|
| The gap between the cultural opportunities in NYC and a
| second tier US city is as vast as the difference between
| cutting edge research at Alphabet and a small web shop
| putting together wordpress sites for the local
| businesses.
|
| The benefit of being in the city is not that you visit
| the MoMa every weekend - the rotating exhibits aren't
| going to align with my interests _that_ frequently. It's
| that enough people around you are operating on a level
| where they could conceivably care about such things.
| mmooss wrote:
| > There are plenty of cities across America which have
| hip arts districts, coffee shops, great museums, nice
| architecture, etc. etc. but they tend to be glossed over.
|
| There are lots of people in smaller cities who say, 'we
| have ____ just like NY!' But it's not just like NY.
| There's a big difference between the innovation, skill,
| production, investment, etc. in those things. If you want
| world-class music, where will you live? Even if you just
| want regular opera, there are only a few US cities to
| live in.
|
| > there is also a ton of hype and imitative behavior that
| makes people focus exclusively on the coastal cities
|
| The same people also say NY is crazy, too liberal (i.e.,
| too socially innovative), things are too odd and strange
| there. Where the 'crazy', innovative ideas - so far out
| that they are strange to most people - are accepted and
| encouraged and loved are in cities like NY. It's not the
| same.
| mmooss wrote:
| Well we have evidence - 'the stated reason' - on one hand,
| and none on the other. As someone who likes those sorts of
| things, living in places like that is completely worthwhile
| if affordable.
|
| > "Hacking" this by figuring out exactly what you want and
| finding it in a less in-demand place is a great move if you
| work remotely.
|
| I referenced that in my GP comment - absolutely, don't
| imitate others, find what you want!
|
| That's easier in places like NY and SF, where people are
| receptive to that and they don't enforce conformity or
| think you are too outside the pale with some wild idea or
| behavior. You're startup idea might not get much support in
| much of the world.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| I dunno, I've looked at cheap places and generally it seems
| like they're "cheap for a reason" to me.
|
| Not that they're always terrible or anything, but there's
| often certain things missing that I'd rather have around.
| But maybe someday.
| hollerith wrote:
| If all the smart people in San Francisco who are there to be
| around other smart people moved to Columbus, Ohio, they could
| save a ton on housing costs.
| mmooss wrote:
| Either you are joking, or some people in SF are now even
| less likely to move to Columbus. :)
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Fun fact: last I checked on Numbeo, Columbus Ohio is more
| expensive to live in than Tokyo.
|
| Of course, the weak yen probably has something to do with
| that, and also the relatively smaller home sizes in
| Japan, but _still_ , kinda crazy.
| wavemode wrote:
| Japan is kind of a special case, as the country in
| general is depopulating.
| klausa wrote:
| Tokyo isn't; and that's not why living here is
| (relatively) cheap.
| jrmg wrote:
| But all the people moving there would drive up housing
| costs.
| sersi wrote:
| I've worked remotely for years and currently live in Hong Kong
| (a city where rent is close to Manhattan prices). Why do I live
| there? Because I appreciate the restaurants available, the
| variety of food, the regular theater performances from all over
| the world, the easy access to hiking trails and beaches while
| living in a densely populated city, access to museums and
| activities for my kid.
|
| I was raised in a tiny village, I hate the countryside, it's so
| utterly boring, I want a short commute to all the activities
| the city offers and I love public transport.
| prawn wrote:
| First time I went to HK in the 90s, I remember being insanely
| impressed that I could go down the lift in our hotel and step
| out into an underground department store and food court full
| of stalls. And then from there, a tiny walk to countless
| other things. Not going to appeal to everyone but I can
| absolutely see why it appeals to some.
| dsr_ wrote:
| My grandparents raised my parents in large cities. My parents
| raised their children in small towns. All of the children
| moved to large cities.
|
| I often describe the town I was raised in as "a great place
| to raise children and an awful place to be a teenager".
| ProAm wrote:
| This is the definition of gentrification. And not a bad thing
| but this is where it starts...
| kulahan wrote:
| My city affords me, with a 20 minute drive, access to Michelin
| star quality restaurants, events that _other_ people travel
| across the planet to attend, constant awesome concerts with the
| biggest stars, and hundreds (thousands?) of mom-and-pops. I
| friggin love it here, and it's only like 40 minutes to some of
| the most beautiful natural landscapes I could hope for.
|
| I COULD live in $cheaperCity, but then I'm paying tons of money
| to go somewhere I actually want to be, not to mention needing
| to plan a whole trip for many of these things, which gets way
| harder when you're one of millions trying to get to the city
| for that event.
| irrational wrote:
| Location, location, location. Some parts of the country are
| nicer than others. Most people don't consider rural areas where
| the land is flat and mostly cornfields (with a possibility of
| tornadoes) to be a nice place to live. I live about an hour
| from the ocean and an hour from year round skiing in the
| mountains. Lots of hills and forests. I had to pay $250,000 for
| a 4,000 sq foot home on a wooded acre when I bought it three
| years ago, but I don't mind spendin that much when I am close
| into the city and so close to nature.
| mock-possum wrote:
| Because I don't pick where I live based on why I can get for my
| money. That's like - the least of my concerns.
| Yizahi wrote:
| Because corporations literally forbid people working for them
| and living in some cheap places. My corporation forbids this, I
| must live withing commute distance of any of our offices,
| despite working full remote for years. They also made a weak
| try to shove us back in the office in 2023, but that was
| universally ignored and not enforced thankfully.
| nottorp wrote:
| > To me working remote means I can live anywhere I want. Why
| not live where you get a lot more for your money?
|
| Sadly that only goes if you don't intend to leave your house
| for anything but grocery shopping.
|
| If you'd rather hang out with friends at a concert and a pub
| after, you're stuck with the wanted and expensive places.
| TylerE wrote:
| > Why not live where you get a lot more for your money?
|
| Because I would have to spend a lot of my money to not be
| miserable, and ultimately still be worse off.
|
| Places that are cheap to live are cheap for a reason.
| acyou wrote:
| Wait, don't I recognize that name? Wait a second... This is THE
| John Scalzi? When I was a kid I pulled a paperback off of my
| dad's bookshelf, Old Man's War. Great, take your brain out trashy
| sci fi, and I mean that in the most positive way possible, it
| left a big impression on me. Incredible writer, cool that he is
| still around and has a blog.
| anyfoo wrote:
| He's not only still around, he still writes awesome books.
|
| But yeah, I too was reading without noticing, until I came to
| the sentence "None of the Scalzis are particularly religious",
| and thought "wait, Scalzi like John Scalzi? It's not... It
| is?!"
| colechristensen wrote:
| Another old man's war series book is going to be released
| this year
| snibsnib wrote:
| Oh wow, i never would have made the connection. 'Lock In' was
| one of my favorite books growing up.
| jwr wrote:
| Yes, that's the guy and he has written a lot of good sci-fi
| since then. He's pretty active on Mastodon too.
| notatoad wrote:
| >take your brain out trashy sci fi, and I mean that in the most
| positive way possible
|
| that's the guy. he's got a new book coming out this month, and
| is a fun follow on social media too (now on bluesky). i feel
| like he would be flattered by your description.
| Thoreandan wrote:
| Seconded - https://bsky.app/profile/scalzi.com is one of the
| more interesting feeds on the site.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| You're in for a treat if you haven't read him since OMW. He's
| one of the more prolific "popular SF" writers around, has won a
| ton of awards, and usually has a book out about every year or
| so.
| loeg wrote:
| The Collapsing Empire series is particularly good.
| wnoise wrote:
| Though the Deus Ex Machina is indeed a Deus Ex Machina,
| even when signposted.
| dmd wrote:
| > When I was a kid [...] Old Man's War
|
| Well, THAT just made me feel like an old man.
| heliostatic wrote:
| Same -- I still think of Scalzi as a new(ish) SF writer since
| he started publishing after I was an adult SF reader. Woof,
| time marches on!
| thenewwazoo wrote:
| Yep, MetaFilter's own jscalzi
| fishywang wrote:
| He is also one of the authors that (almost) all his eBooks sold
| on Google Play are without DRM.
| nbzso wrote:
| Question from Eastern European: Which religion is prevalent in
| the USA? Masonic orders? Scientology? Atheism?
|
| I noticed that there you have more masonic temples than churches
| in every city.
| jes5199 wrote:
| culturally-Christian atheists, mostly, followed by a lot of the
| less-mainline versions of Christianity
| tasty_freeze wrote:
| Pew polls show about 5% or slightly less identify as
| atheists. About 30% (including atheists) are non-religious.
| About 60% identify as Christian. Then a few other groups that
| are 1-2%: Jewish, Mormon, Buddhist, Muslim.
|
| Your statement of "mostly" is an extreme (10x) overstatement.
|
| The text above was from memory. I just looked it up and I was
| pretty accurate: https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-
| landscape-study/
|
| I take umbrage at another aspect of your statement:
| "culturally Christian atheists". I've heard this pointed
| specifically at me by people saying things like, "You are
| Christian, you just don't know it." That say that because I
| tend to be sensitive/kind/helpful/low ego. Yes, good
| Christians should be those things, but that doesn't mean that
| Christianity owns those traits or that those traits didn't
| exist and weren't valued before Christianity came along.
| TylerE wrote:
| If you asked the typical American protestant (who does NOT
| go to church every week BTW) if they really believe in the
| whole god and heaven and hell thing, a lot of 'em are gonna
| hem and haw. It's closer to a social club than an old
| school religion.
| jes5199 wrote:
| I don't disagree! but among Americans who do not go to
| church, most of them have parents or grandparents or great-
| grandparents who attended Christian church regularly, and
| some of that culture is still prevalent in subtle things
| like "protestant work ethic"
| djur wrote:
| Evangelical Protestants, Catholics, and mainline Protestants
| make up 60% of the US population. Atheism isn't that common,
| maybe 5-10% of the population depending on definition.
| technothrasher wrote:
| It's Christianity by a wide margin (about 2/3rds of the
| population). I'm not sure where you get the idea there are more
| masonic lodges than churches. Just a quick check for my state,
| Massachusetts, shows about 300 masonic lodges and about 4000
| churches.
| rsynnott wrote:
| > I noticed that there you have more masonic temples than
| churches in every city.
|
| ... Eh?
|
| The US probably has more churches, as in physical buildings,
| per capita than anywhere else in the world.
|
| Freemasonry isn't a religion, though it has vague religious
| trappings, but in any case it's fairly absurd to suggest that
| there are more masonic buildings than churches in the US.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| > I noticed that there you have more masonic temples than
| churches in every city.
|
| This is nonsense. I doubt you've even been to the US if you're
| making claims like this.
|
| https://www.google.com/maps/search/churches+in+Boone/@36.206...
|
| https://www.google.com/maps/search/masons+in+Boone/@36.20686...
|
| One Masonic Lodge vs 18 churches. Repeat that experiment with a
| bunch of random cities and you'll find that outside of the very
| high population cities (NYC, Chicago, Atlanta, etc.) there are
| rarely more than one or two lodges, if they even have one at
| all.
| gabruoy wrote:
| I'll put it this way to contrast with the other post on
| Hackernews about Americans driving their kids to school:
|
| There is a much higher likelihood of a child being within
| walking distance of a church than they are to be within walking
| distance of a school.
| tomcam wrote:
| If you're lucky enough to do something like this I can't
| recommend it enough. I bought a second house in my neighborhood
| instead of renting an office and it made work a hell of a lot
| more fun. Felt healthier too, because I could open windows or
| take walks.
| berikv wrote:
| Please don't terrify your contractors. They fix your place, and
| you want them on your side doing a good job.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| I take "terrify" to mean "they know they will be supervised and
| their wkrk checked".
| lbotos wrote:
| I've "terrified" contractors when I've called them on their BS.
| I once had a contractor tell me it was okay to notch 50% into a
| load bearing floor joist. I quickly pulled up the building code
| and his face went pale...
| dmd wrote:
| Like this? https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.r
| edd.it%2Ff...
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| > a company to develop creative projects that were not my novels
|
| This may be related to Netflix movie/series adaptation of "Old
| Man's War" ?
|
| https://reactormag.com/netflixs-adaptation-of-john-scalzis-o...
| rsynnott wrote:
| > and despite the actions of certain science fiction authors in
| the past offering precedent, I have no desire to start a cult
|
| > I want to recondition the old pastor's study, get the organ
| functional again, and we want to make the sanctuary level more
| easily accessible via ramps and such
|
| I mean, he _claims_ not to want to start a cult, but I feel like,
| if starting a cult, these are exactly the sort of facilities one
| would be recommissioning. Especially the organ.
|
| Granted, for a moment I thought this was Charles Stross (the
| other Very Online sci-fi author), which would be _far_ more
| worrying, considering.
| beAbU wrote:
| He also mentioned using the basement for "gatherings" and that
| immediately set off my cult-alarm bells!
|
| Pretty jealous to be honest, the building itself looks
| beautiful.
| c0brac0bra wrote:
| I think the frequency of organ-centered cults is lower than you
| might imagine.
| rsynnott wrote:
| Is this an organ music joke?
|
| (Most cults probably don't have pipe organs, but I feel like
| it is unquestionably a _plus_ for your cult if you happen to
| have access to one.)
| biomcgary wrote:
| In the end, I suspect most cults want all your organs.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| Or to do something to you with their organs...
| wnoise wrote:
| He also created the Githzerai/Githyanki, so other ways of
| creating cults seem easier.
| widforss wrote:
| They use the sign outside for the most hilarious messages. On
| Google Maps you can see two versions, "IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A
| SIGN HERE IT IS", and "SORRY KIDS SCHOOL TIME AGAIN".
| akie wrote:
| In case you're wondering, here it is:
| https://maps.app.goo.gl/nbWXb78AHC5oUjTw6
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| It's really a beautiful building, so glad they kept the
| stained glass. Great that they were able to repurpose this
| and didn't tear it down!
| f_allwein wrote:
| Related: beautiful reuse of a former church in Copenhagen. They
| host events during the day and communal dinners at night.
| https://absaloncph.dk/en/
| lookdangerous wrote:
| Hmm, a six-necked guitar called the Beast on the Altar. That's a
| little on the nose.
| magicmicah85 wrote:
| I thought I wanted a house with land, woods, garden with bunch of
| carrots and little sweet peas, but now I want a church to
| maintain.
| kazinator wrote:
| > _What denomination used to be there?_
|
| Oh, baskets of mostly dollar coins, quarters, some dimes, ...
| mnemotronic wrote:
| Do any talking cats live or have their offices there?
| themadturk wrote:
| There are rumors that the church is haunted, but John claims no
| ghosts have made their presence known.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| $75k. Wow. You'd be lucky to buy a 1 bedroom crack den on the
| worst estate in the UK for that.
|
| Given the Methodist's reputation for being dour, I'm surprised
| how nice it looks inside.
| panzagl wrote:
| In the US, Methodist is a relatively middle-of-the-road
| denomination, not nearly as dreary as I've seen UK Methodists
| described.
| dnemmers wrote:
| From the extensive renovations listed, I'm guessing you can add
| another $200k onto that price point.
| deckar01 wrote:
| https://thechurchstudio.com/about/
| myflash13 wrote:
| The idyllic life of small town America?
| twic wrote:
| 1919. Pfft! My cousin has bought and is converting a church where
| the oldest bits are 12th century (although the tower is 17th
| century, and it was extensively redone in the 1830s). At the rate
| he works, he's probably going to be working on it for the rest of
| his life.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-03-14 23:02 UTC)