Passing Thought, I did not intend to accuse you of ridiculing, but it has become common in our modern, enlightened culture to ridicule and denigrate all thoughts and practices that are not our own. I think it's bad manners, but denigration is in vogue nowadays.

I think it's clear in II Samuel Chapter 7, that God wasn't particularly interested in having a temple, and rather liked moving about in a portable tent. But David wanted a temple, and God allowed David's son Solomon to build on. From all accounts, it was really good for the tourist trade in Jerusalem, and Jews were really proud of it.

I think the world would be poorer without the beautiful architecture of religious buildings from all cultures, from the Polish Cathedral style of architecture in the U.S., to the Mayan pyramids. Think of St. Peter's, St. Paul's, St. Basil's, Hagia Sophia, the Dome of the Rock and countless other mosques, and Angkor Wat.

But I don't think religious buildings are for God - they are for the people, an expression of their identity and their relationship with their concept of God. All of the religious buildings on my list were a tremendous waste of money, and no doubt many involved greed and political intrigue and all sorts of other vices - but they sure are nice to have now. And they have served as a source of inspiration and pride and dignity and identity for generations upon generations of people. They also have provided employment to many artisans and craftsmen, and gathering places for all sorts of purposes. So, if people want to build churches, why not?

-Joe-