BS: Church V State

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 06:29 AM

Pete is challenging us to prove the unprovable, having made an assumption, equally unprovable, to the contrary. Proof cannot be given either way though reasoning has been provided. But he doesn't listen, as ever. All the people who could confirm or deny what he claims are long dead. It's quite interesting that you rush to his support, Keith, in view of your usual attitude to matters historical. I'm just off to Waterstones to check this out.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 06:28 AM

You object to my playing with a phrase while you totally negate the colloquial meaning of wanker, which I had already explained as someone who pleases no-one but himself. So, it is perfectly OK for you to play with a phrase but not for other people to do the same. Making up the rules as you go along once again. Or cheating as I have often pointed out. And yes, I am occasionally a wanker. As Rick Nelson said, you can't please everyone so you've got to please yourself. I will leave it to you to figure out which meaning I am referring to although I am sure you will chose the wrong one.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 05:24 AM

"He is open to being shown that his opinion is wrong."
He has been, as have you - neither of you choose to respond to the facts of history
"I suspect that everyone has masturbated at some time."
Oooo - "masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action" and a sin, according to the Church - what would god say?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 04:30 AM

Of course, what I was really objecting to was you making a petty issue out of a perfectly acceptable and correctly used phrase, instead of engaging in serious discussion.

Just playing with it.
You people do a lot of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 04:17 AM

I would have to know who you were referring to, but even then no-one is entitled to an opinion on such an intimate and personal matter.

What gives you the right to pontificate about what a person might or might not do alone and in private?
I suspect that everyone has masturbated at some time.
Would you make it a crime?
Would you be found guilty?
Are you a wanker Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 04:08 AM

I take that to mean that he has an opinion but an open mind.
He is open to being shown that his opinion is wrong.

Exactly the same as me, Keith.

Unless you can show otherwise I assume you are a wanker.

I hold that opinion but am open to being shown it is wrong. Are you going to show me?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 04:01 AM

Pete said, " Unless you can show otherwise, I assume at least some of the others (non atheist) aimed at composing in honour of God, as well as earning a living. "

I take that to mean that he has an opinion but an open mind.
He is open to being shown that his opinion is wrong.

I find that much more reasonable than people who make assertions and then just respond with abuse if anyone dares questions it.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 03:40 AM

"I don't think getting paid for your work precludes it being also done for the glory of God,"
Of course it doesn't, but neither does the building of multi-story office blocks imply that those who did the work worship mammon - the poor who built York or St Pauls.... or wherever... worked to stay alive and, in the case of churches, with no choice - they were given offers they could not refuse - part of the priest's power.
We know the peasantry were ruled by fear - it's one of the few certainty's we have, and virtually nothing beyond that - everything else in based on claims by those who administered that fear.
The Churches, like Royal palaces, were displays of wealth and power, not of god, but of his "chosen" representatives on earth.
"You people just do not want a reasoned discussion."
We'll consider one if you put one up - so far you have made an unqualified statement with nothing to back it up - you refuse to even acknowledge the facts of history that you have been given - common knowledge by real historians which can be found in real bookshops.
Jim Carroll

More common knowledge:
"The Catholic Church wielded extreme power and influence during the medieval period, shaping the social, cultural, and political fabric of peasant life in Europe.
Additionally, the church played an important role in determining a peasant's economic fate. Although the church itself was exempt from paying taxes, peasants were responsible for paying approximately ten percent of their earnings (either in cash or goods) in taxes to the church—known as tithes. The church threatened that the failure to pay tithes would result in the damnation of one's soul. Tithes are merely one example of several that lead to the church's substantial fortune. They were also used by figures of the Protestant Reformation, in the early sixteenth century, as an example of the Catholic Church's ostentatious and lavish conduct."

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jul 15 - 03:20 AM

I love that "unless you can show otherwise". A couple of contributors to Mudcat use it and it always makes me laugh. Maybe I should use it more and put the onus on other people to disprove any crazy theory I come up with.

Unless you can show otherwise I assume you are a wanker.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 06:30 PM

Well assuming is one thing, having evidence that their primary motive was for the glorification of God is another entirely. I tend to not go around assuming too many things. It keeps me out of trouble. But do continue to assume.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 05:55 PM

I don't think getting paid for your work precludes it being also done for the glory of God, though granted it will if the artist is atheist. Unless you can show otherwise, I assume at least some of the others aimed at composing in honour of God, as well as earning a living. I think that is to " get real " !

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 04:57 PM

They composed music for churches, and those two artists, and many more, created great art for churches. Perhaps you don't know Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, Mozart' s Great C minor Mass or Vaughan Williams's lovely Mass in G minor (RVW was an atheist). Not to speak of Bach. I went to the Accademia in Venice and saw some stunning altar pieces that must have taken months or years to produce. When you're a jobbing artist or musician, you do not produce your work for free out of the goodness of your heart. You have to make ends meet. Let not historical distance lend too much enchantment to your view. Get real, pete, in other words.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 04:41 PM

So those composers constructed churches ?.....well you learn summat every day !. But even supposing we extend the examples to musicians, my comments still apply....ie you are still arguing absolutist one or the other .

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 04:35 PM

You people just do not want a reasoned discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 04:20 PM

rather than going on crusades, which had been a popular means of absolving sins in the late eleventh century

S'right - kill a Muslim for Jesus & get a "get out of jail free card".

Kinda like today ........

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 03:01 PM

This from Durham World Heritage site

Ah, but was it written by an eminent, living historian who writes for the tabloid press and whose works are available in bookstores? (the requirement of the author agreeing with you has already been fulfilled)

Otherwise its got to be bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 03:00 PM

"but not at all convincing."
Of course you're not, but then again, who expected you to
It would take an acetylene torch you get into a mind as closed as yours.
This really isn't for your benefit - it's to show what happens when yopu introduce a closed mind to facts - call it a lab experiment.
Nobody here cares what you (don't) think, or even that you don't
The rest is meaningless cut-'n-paste which in no way addresses the raelity of the situation. Try reading some of your "real" historians, instead of the adverts.
Jim Carroll
More

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 02:33 PM

Jim,
The churches were built as a symbol of power - you've had your evidence on that one, which you8 will continue to ignore.

Noted not ignored Jim, but not at all convincing.
The church had real power and needed no symbols.

This from Durham World Heritage site, produced by Durham University.

"The building of monumental cathedrals in the middle ages was a reflection of faith and the channel for much of the creative energy of medieval European society.

Although cathedral building was driven by religious figures or institutions, it was often a community effort. From the mid-twelfth century, the Church started granting indulgences (forgiveness of sins) to those who would help to build a church or cathedral, and therefore, rather than going on crusades, which had been a popular means of absolving sins in the late eleventh century, people dedicated more effort to the construction of houses of God instead.

There was always a faction among the pious that disapproved of excessive spending on the construction and decoration of lavish religious buildings, but these were a minority, and the dominant feeling was one of great enthusiasm, ambition, and a desire to excel in this quest to construct magnificent buildings reflecting God's glory.

As cathedrals took decades, and often even centuries to complete, few people who worked on them expected to see them finished during their lifetimes. Being involved in the construction of a cathedral, even as the building patron, required a willingness to be part of a process that was larger than oneself."
https://www.durhamworldheritagesite.com/architecture/cathedral/construction

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 02:02 PM

Well, pete, if only we could resurrect Michelangelo and Tintoretto and ask 'em. I have a feeling that they'd answer, to make a bob or two out of my talent. Why did Mozart compose The Magic Flute? To make his living, that's why. He was hopeless with money and was in debt at the time. The Beethoven late quartets, the most sublime music ever composed, were written to a commission. No guessing about this then, eh, pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 12:58 PM

"and still applies in large areas of Ireland today I would think."
Sorry - missed this.
It's interesting to have been around in Ireland over the last couple of decades.
Since the clerical abuse/industrial schools/Masgdelene Laundries broke scandal broke, the faithful have had course to reflect their relationship with the church.
The church has lost its grip on peoples' minds in a big way, church attendences have dropped radically and political influence has waned (see the referendums on Gay marriage and pregnancy termination.
During the latter, the church threatened to excommunicate all politicians who voted for it, but it was still passed (weak as it was).
After the Same-Sex marriage vote, the Bishop of Dublin said that the church needs to wake up to what's happening.
Now, religious schools are coming under scrutiny - my day must be jumping for joy in his urn!
The grip the English church had on peoples' minds appeared to loosen between the wars - now it is a bit of a cypher clung on to by politicians - just in case.....
The religious content of the 'swearing of allegiance" in the British Parliament was abolished in 1977.
The role of the church in British society was always summed up for me when I had to state my religion for official purposes; up to comparatively recently, if you said, "none" you were entered as "Church of England" (as good as none).
Here in Ireland they have taken to writing down "not disclosed".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 12:54 PM

maybe this petty bickering is due to thinking in absolutes of one or the other, rather than both and. there may have been some less than virtuous motives in church construction , including oneupmanship between parishes/local lords, but who sees the intricacies of art and craftsmanship hidden in the heights of these ecclesiastic structures when initially erected ?. who was it done for ?.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 12:35 PM

"No. I said, "The churches were built to the glory of God, "
The churches were built as a symbol of power - you've had your evidence on that one, which you8 will continue to ignore.
When these churches were built religion was a business.
You could even buy your way ingto Heaven via Indulgences and Pardons (see Chaucer's Pardoner's Tale - The Canterbury Tales)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 12:21 PM

Yeah, as long as you can get a replacement clickety-click and two fat ladies for the ones you lost in that car park. Nearly got bloody lynched last time by two elderly women who spotted that those numbers never came up meaning they'd never had a cat in hell's chance of winning. Yeah, House of Lords would be good. You get three hundred quid for just sticking your nose in the door then you can be off to run the bingo. Where is the house of lords anyway? Is it anywhere near Oswaldtwistle? I could start looking for a cheap joint nearby to do the bingo in...

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 11:53 AM

'ere, co-Messiahs. We missed a couple of tricks I think. Firstly, did we get any representation in the house of lords? Surely if mere bishops can get there, we can. Secondly, we could have got round having to rent a hall for the holy bingo. We could have had one built to our glory! Just imagine it. Stained glass windows, private cubicles for 'confession' (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). To get the Muslims in as well we could call it 'Mecca'...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 11:47 AM

excluded first hand accounts of WW1

That's 'cause they're dead. On the other hand, you CAN find them in book shops.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 11:47 AM

You said that churches exist to the glory of God and their purpose was the services to that effect.

No. I said, "The churches were built to the glory of God, and still only exist as churches for the holding of services."

"The churches were built to the glory of God,"

They were, and I have shown that it is not just me saying that.

"and still only exist as churches for the holding of services."

That is true.
When no longer required for services they are sold off for other use.

What is your point Musket?
Are you just determined to make some petty objection to anything I say?
Is that why you followed me to the Iraq thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 11:23 AM

The first paragraph Jim still applied in 1960's England and still applies in large areas of Ireland today I would think.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 11:16 AM

A pretty handy summing up of the situation from 'The History Learning Site'
Works for me
Jim Carroll

The Medieval Church played a far greater role in Medieval England than the Church does today. In Medieval England, the Church dominated everybody's life. All Medieval people – be they village peasants or towns people – believed that God, Heaven and Hell all existed. From the very earliest of ages, the people were taught that the only way they could get to Heaven was if the Roman Catholic Church let them. Everybody would have been terrified of Hell and the people would have been told of the sheer horrors awaiting for them in Hell in the weekly services they attended.
The control the Church had over the people was total. Peasants worked for free on Church land. This proved difficult for peasants as the time they spent working on Church land, could have been better spent working on their own plots of land producing food for their families.
They paid 10% of what they earned in a year to the Church (this tax was called tithes). Tithes could be paid in either money or in goods produced by the peasant farmers. As peasants had little money, they almost always had to pay in seeds, harvested grain, animals etc. This usually caused a peasant a lot of hardship as seeds, for example, would be needed to feed a family the following year. What the Church got in tithes was kept in huge tithe barns; a lot of the stored grain would have been eaten by rats or poisoned by their urine. A failure to pay tithes, so the peasants were told by the Church, would lead to their souls going to Hell after they had died.
This is one reason why the Church was so wealthy. One of the reasons Henry VIII wanted to reform the Church was get hold of the Catholic Church's money. People were too scared not to pay tithes despite the difficulties it meant for them.
You also had to pay for baptisms (if you were not baptised you could not go to Heaven when you died), marriages (there were no couples living together in Medieval times as the Church taught that this equaled sin) and burials – you had to be buried on holy land if your soul was to get to heaven. Whichever way you looked, the Church received money.
The Church also did not have to pay taxes. This saved them a vast sum of money and made it far more wealthy than any king of England at this time. The sheer wealth of the Church is best shown in its buildings : cathedrals, churches and monasteries.
In Medieval England, peasants lived in cruck houses. These were filthy, usually no more than two rooms, with a wooden frame covered with wattle and daub (a mixture of mud, straw and manure). No cruck houses exist now – most simply collapsed after a while as they were so poorly built. However, there are many Medieval churches around. The way they were built and have lasted for centuries, is an indication of how well they were built and the money the Church had to invest in these building.
Important cities would have cathedrals in them. The most famous cathedrals were at Canterbury and York. After the death of Thomas Becket, Canterbury Cathedral became a center for pilgrimage and the city grew more and more wealthy. So did the Church. Cathedrals were vast. They are big by our standards today, but in Medieval England they were bigger than all buildings including royal palaces. Their sheer size meant that people would see them from miles around, and remind them of the huge power of the Catholic Church in Medieval England.
To work on the building of a cathedral was a great honour. Those who did the skilled work had to belong to a guild. They would have used just the most basic of tools and less than strong scaffolding to do the ceilings. However, if you were killed in an accident while working in a cathedral or a church, you were guaranteed a place in Heaven – or so the workers were told.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Musket
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 11:09 AM

My impersonation of Jesus on a rubber cross is performed to the glory of God. Without such beliefs, it wouldn't be as funny.

Keith.. You said that churches exist to the glory of God and their purpose was the services to that effect. No bloody mention of superstitious medieval minds, but what you think, irrationally, is the purpose of old churches still sitting there.

Your qualification of the matter came after various people gave examples that proved you wrong. No need to do what you did, none whatsoever. Everybody here on Mudcat is nice and understanding when one of us gets muddled and gets it wrong.

Steve says silly things about a third rate football team in Scouseland. Dave puts the wrong folk group at the top of his list, Jim is Jim occasionally.

None of us bend our earlier silliness to try to look as if we never said it.

Try joining the human race eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 09:50 AM

"You could probably find modern-day icon painters who said their works were to the glory of god" Of course you probably could/would they are depicting religious themes and are probably/possibly of a religious bent otherwise they would be painting such works.

Is it really that difficult to figure that out.

However someone quotes "according to a document of the time" and believes it as gospel. The same person who excluded first hand accounts of WW1 as being biased/not true/written by people with a personal agenda/not published by proper historians and sold in proper bookshops.

Amazing

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 09:16 AM

"Do we have contemporary writings suggesting that they were merely wage slaves rather than workers subscribing to a delusion of the age?"
We have no evidence either way, but we do have historically recorded disturbances such as The Peasants Revolt and similar uprisings in Europe to indicate that all was not sweetness and light as far as the relationship between the peasantry and the Church was not all sweetness and light.
The Church held massive power and influence in Europe - it part part of a ruling establishment headed my monarchs "chosen by God" to rule.   
To suggest that they ruled without opposition was a nonsense and to take the word of people who still don't question the authority of the church is equally so.
There has ever been a study of the relationship between the state and the people, basically because the peoples' opinions were never taken into consideration and remain unknown and probably unknowable.
You only have to examine the folk literature to see that criticism of the church and the state was deep-rooted in the peasantry - that is common to all feudal societies.
Stupid quotes out of context by believers mean nothing - "the Pisan's" would be a reference to the privileged classes in Pisa as interpreted by the church - the unnder-classes were never asked their opinion - if they were, where were they recorded?
"To the Glory of God" was an advertising slogan little different than "fabulous pink Camay", with the backing of divine authority.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 08:53 AM

You could probably find modern-day icon painters who said their works were to the glory of god.

The tour guides at these cathedrals we pay to go round spin the line of craftsmen doing it to the glory of god, with the hidden details that no-one would see etc. Do we have contemporary writings suggesting that they were merely wage slaves rather than workers subscribing to a delusion of the age ?

If you are arguing that the glory of god bit was just to keep the peasentry in awe then the craftsmen could have been in awe as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 08:45 AM

Gardner's Art through the Ages: The Western Perspective
By Fred Kleiner

Re Pisa Cathedral, "The Pisans, according to a document of the time, wanted their bishop's church not only to be a monument to the glory of God but also to bring credit to the city."

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 08:44 AM

One of the most stunning things I've ever seen inside a church is the giant mosaic depicting the last judgement in the cathedral of Santa Maria Assunta in Torcello, in the Venetian lagoon. It takes up the whole back wall of the church. Put it on your to-do-before-I-die list!

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 08:36 AM

A Companion to Medieval Palermo: The History of a Mediterranean City from 600 to 1500.

"Architects, sculptors and mosaicists from a wide range of different, and often distant regions pooled their skills in order to erect a temple to the glory of God, "

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 08:36 AM

"Mirjam Gelfer-Jørgensen publishes articles on arts and crafts, decorative arts, industrial design, graphic art, interiors, etc"

Cutting edge stuff then.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 08:31 AM

Medieval Islamic Symbolism and the Paintings in the Cefalù Cathedral, Volume 1
By Mirjam Gelfer-Jørgensen

"..., it seems rather remarkable that the paintings in Cefalu Cathedral have been allowed to remain so unobserved. This is apparently due to the fact that they simply can not be seen from the floor of the cathedral. For more than 800 years they have embellished the wooden roof construction solely to the glory of God."

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 08:27 AM

" I used it to describe the antics of a small group on the Tunisia beach massacre thread after it was left to them" This is from someone who posted to that same thread on the very last day it was used. Is that leaving it to them, just 4 hours 41 minutes??

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Raggytash
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 08:21 AM

Isn't it amazing that the idiot is prepared to believe that churches etc "were built to the glory of God" because (as he said to Musket)
" I told you how the church and cathedral builders described their work"

Yet these statements were written hundreds of years ago. Certainly not in the last twenty years and I doubt if you could find them in a bookshop today.

Dual standards .............. again.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 08:17 AM

It's a bit much to be accused of bullying somebody who accuses those who disagree with him of being "sad" (about half a dozen times recently)

About twice I think, and not to anyone disagreeing with me.
I used it to describe the antics of a small group on the Tunisia beach massacre thread after it was left to them.
Many of the victims had not even been buried.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 07:47 AM

"There is no contradiction."
Yes there is
There is nor evidence what the people who actually did the building believed - it was a medieval peasant society and nobody gave a toss what they thought as long as they did as they were told and payed their taxes.   
"That was their belief."
You ca repeat this as often as you like (as you will), but we have no idea what the actual builders, or those who were commissioned to build, believed.
Perhaps there's some "expert" out there to show us otherwise?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 07:38 AM

You stated that they were built to the glory of God, you never said that those building them believed it to be such a glory.

There is no contradiction.
I am sorry if you misunderstood, but I was telling you "that they were built to the glory of God" by their builders.
And they were.
That was their belief.
What is your point or is this just another petty and vindictive bit of nonsense?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 06:27 AM

They may have been "dedicated to the glory of God."" by those who commissioned them, on the other hand, they were far more likely to have been built to establish their authority over the faithful - religion has always been a source of power - and wealth - for those 'chosen by god'
Just been reading (and viewing) some of the accounts of the too-ing an froe-ing of the various brands of religion in Henry VIII time; makes the Winter Palace arguments in St Petersburg following the Russian Revolution look like a schoolyard squabble over a bag of sweets.
The Church, when many of these buildings were being put up, were little more than businesses touting for custom.
That they left us with breathtakingly beautiful places to visit is unarguable, but it doesn't change any of the facts.
If you have any doubt of this I suggest you try Desmond Seward's 'The Monks of War' (The Military Orders), or anything on the Borgias or the Medicis.
Regarding deliberately misreading Keith's posts" - nobody is doing this, nor ever has - Keith says what he means to say, then, when he is challenged, back-peddles, or claims he is only the messenger
It's a bit much to be accused of bullying somebody who accuses those who disagree with him of being "sad" (about half a dozen times recently) or, naive or "muppets" (interminably)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 05:20 AM

Deliberatley missreading Keith's posts makes a group of you just look like playground bullies

Keith does it all the time. To be kind I often say we speak a different language but most other people seem to understand my meaning. To be unkind I would say he does it on purpose to provoke reaction and cause arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Musket laughing
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 05:00 AM

No you didn't Keith.

Yes, they describe it so. They had no alternative but to believe it, as opposed to these enlightened times.

But you didn't say that. You stated that they were built to the glory of God, you never said that those building them believed it to be such a glory.

Your later qualifications would be useful at the time, if only to prevent people from forming views on what you actually typed. Clapton forbid that you would wish to stand by provocative outpourings eh?

In any event, those paying for early cathedrals built them to the glory of keeping the peasants subdued with folklore. The barons found religion rather useful.

Today, they only exist because normal people pay to visit them. Without such income, The CofE especially would let them crumble or flog them off, as they do other churches apparently built to the glory of their God. (Glory of CofE bank balance, take your pick.)

I know a couple of hills in Norfolk. To be fair, they wouldn't pass muster as "undulating" in most counties but fair do's and all that. You can get exercise in Norfolk.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 05:00 AM

Raggytash

What was factually incorrect, as I pointed out at 16 Jul 15 - 04:44 AM was that those two did not 'fall out of use' but were taken over by the crown at the dissolution. Their occupants were kicked out.

It was clear from the context that Keith's 'fallen from religious use' meant churches that had become redundant. There was then plenty of discussion about what he did mean (including a link from me to one sold off to become a mosque - if forget to add the XX).

Deliberatley missreading Keith's posts makes a group of you just look like playground bullies going after the awkward kid.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 04:59 AM

Publisher's note from Great Medieval Churches and Cathedrals of Europe: 120 Classic Engravings
By Jules Gailhabaud.

"The design and construction of churches-cathedrals in particular-employed a vast range of workers-architects,masons, carpenters, sculptors, glass workers, woodcarvers and unskilled laborers who toiled for years-often for a lifetime-to erect these edifices dedicated to the glory of God."

Course at Trinity College, Dublin.
HA4323 To the Glory of God: the art and architecture of the medieval church c.1100-1220

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 04:49 AM

Raggytash

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 04:44 AM

Musket, I told you how the church and cathedral builders described their work.
You somehow know better, as usual.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 04:44 AM

The church at Cley is among my favourites. Here's a plc I took back in May:

St, Margaret's, Cley-next-the-Sea, from the graveyard of St, Mary's at Wiveton.

Plenty of hills in Norfolk; none of them to do with the Biblical flood, alas. It was people puzzling over finding seashells on high ground that helped inspire such mythology in the first place.