BS: Church V State

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 02:49 PM

" Some have indeed fallen out of religious use, and no-one would pay to visit those"

You mean like Fountains Abbey, Tintern abbey?

You really are a complete and utter wanker

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 02:55 PM

"You really are a complete and utter wanker"
You-can-not-be-serious!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 02:55 PM

Did those 'fall out religious use', or where their occupants kicked out ?

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 03:01 PM

Whalley's pretty neat too. And who can resist the gnomic abbey ruins at Bury St. Edmonds??

Bury St. Edmonds June 1st 2014

I think it's free to get in - but people DO want to see them.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Mudcat pedant
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 03:29 PM

were...

Some here feel poor use of the language you were taught lessens your impact.

To be fair, it is the piss poor quality of some treachers.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 03:38 PM

Treachers, pedant??

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 04:09 PM

People pay to use a holiday let I own in Fife that used to be a chapel..

Like Dave's two examples, they might pay to use them, but not just to see them.
Historic ruins are in a different category.

Most old ruins that used to be churches are run by English Heritage, NT etc,

That is not true of churches that have just fallen out of use, which was what I said, and which stands.

"The churches were built to the glory of God, and still only exist as churches for the holding of services.

Some have indeed fallen out of religious use, and no-one would pay to visit those.

Churches may allow other events between services but, as I said, the services are the reason churches exist."

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 05:19 PM

There are other uses changes of use

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Musket shaking his head
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 06:33 PM

Ah well. I should have known those Keith hadn't thought of were in a different category. He just meant those people don't pay to visit.

Silly old Musket.

Those that people pay to visit are just er

What was it again Keith?
😂😂😂

Oh and allowing other uses? Allowing? It's just that I wouldn't want you to call the good people who apply for grants to be hoodwinking The Charities Commission.

Yes. Some do rent out because they allow it to be so. Many rent out because they are required to, and not by your imaginary friend.

If churches merely existed for their members, we'd have more bingo halls.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 08:00 PM

"Did those 'fall out religious use', or where their occupants kicked out ?"
They ran out of customers - it was either that or a Tesco.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 09:11 PM

Ten minutes' walk through the fields from my house is one of the tiniest churches I've ever seen, the CofE church of Our Lady and St Anne on Leverlake Road, a short step from the beach at Widemouth Bay, about three miles from Bude. Somewhat devoid of architectural merit, admittedly, but a charming spot nonetheless.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 09:54 PM

And yet another use for a church.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Musket smiling
Date: 16 Jul 15 - 02:25 AM

Guildford Cathedral came in handy too when they wanted a location for a scene in The Omen.

To be fair, that was "allowed" although impaling Dr Who with a bloody great crucifix was sacrilege! They should show more respect and deference to a Time Lord. Allowing their cathedral to be used to kill a Galefrian.....

Bleeding well blasphemous

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jul 15 - 03:58 AM

Churches do allow other uses between services, for which they may charge, but the church exists for the services, and was constructed "to the glory of God."
That is not "hoodoo" Jim, it was how they spoke of it.
That is also why they hung the bells in them Musket, and why they let you ring them.

Churches no longer required for services are sold off.
People use them, but no one visits just to see them when they are just another enclosed space.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 16 Jul 15 - 04:44 AM

You mean like Fountains Abbey, Tintern abbey?

My point was that those to were vacated in the Dissolution. So bad examples of paying to get into redundant churches.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 16 Jul 15 - 05:42 AM

I came across a lovely wee church in deepest, darkest Norfolk a few weeks back - fallen from religious use it's now open to anyone who wants to inspect it's medieval wall paintings and / or have a wee pump on it's old harmonium.

Naturally, I did both & made a wee recording - though heaven knows I'm no keyboard player, I just wanted to capture the feel of the place in sound. I also left a donation & WOULD have paid if asked.

Saint Faith's. 19.5.15.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 16 Jul 15 - 09:28 AM

When did God say he wanted all the fancy stuff? Many non-conformists manage to do without it, spending what dosh they had building little chapels in out of the way parts.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Jul 15 - 12:44 PM

Have you been to st Mary's,houghton on on the hill, Norfolk .   It was discovered overgrown and ruined and used by witches.   Bob who "restored" it organised a couple of soldiers to scare them off apparently !. Lovely out of the way location, and some remnants of wall painting.   It has a web site.    I shall look up st faiths as we plan to go to Norfolk some time soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jul 15 - 01:09 PM

Going back to something Steve said earlier, I wonder why you can get away with not paying to see Salisbury cathedral but it costs about £15 to see that other local (presumed) religious edifice, Stonehenge? I cannot believe the the cost of upkeep is comparable! Maybe it is. Maybe in years to come the religions of both will be all but extinct!

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 16 Jul 15 - 02:21 PM

St Faith, Little Witchingham

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 16 Jul 15 - 04:27 PM

Never been. Interesting story. Looks nice...

St Mary, Houghton-on-the-Hill

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Jul 15 - 04:27 PM

There are no hills in Norfolk. Get your God to make some, I'd hate to see you disappointed.

A lot of posts missing on this thread. Ironic seeing the moderators call heritage anything outside of living memory.

This is the real not new world we are discussing, prats.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jul 15 - 05:12 PM

Than there is Lud's church in the white peak. Very atmospheric and not built to the glory of anyone. Must say, when we got there, I did say a little word of thanks to the naiads of the Dane for letting me keep my feet on the thick ice in the valley above the river en route! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Musket sans comfort blanket
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 03:28 AM

"Churches are built to the glory of God"

But churches actually exist! I can see them, touch them and many years ago, my girlfriend and I got in through a back door of one late at night and had a right good shag.

I think you'll find many churches, especially in the various empires western countries ran were built to the glory of suppressing the natives. Here in Blighty, many were built to the glory of having something bigger and better than "the other lot" have, or indeed what the town over there have.

Built to the glory of vanity and hypocrisy. Still, they are useful to normal people as somewhere to visit and marvel at the architecture, style and get an insight into the past, when almost everyone was controlled and their lives moulded by simpleton superstition.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: Will Fly
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 03:40 AM

GUEST: There are no hills in Norfolk.

GUEST obviously doesn't know north Norfolk - try finding the lovely old, ruined church in Corpusty, or dip inland from the north Norfolk coast near Blakeney and Cley.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 03:55 AM

Dear XX my post of 15 July 02.49 PM is not factually incorrect at all. It was made initially to a post which stated:

" Some have indeed fallen out of religious use, and no-one would pay to visit those"

I replied "You mean like Fountains Abbey, Tintern abbey?"

Perhaps you could tell me which bit is FACTUALLY incorrect. However I do appreciate that the occupants may have been kicked out so I'll suggest you might want to look at
http://www.visitchurches.org.uk/

Which fits your model a little better

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 03:58 AM

PS I stand by the second remark you objected to.

Subject: RE: BS: Church V State
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Jul 15 - 04:03 AM

Also for the benefit of obnoxious guest......st Mary's is at the end of a long unmade road going.......uphill !.    And btw, at the church they have some sea shells found at the site during renovation. Might give you a clue as to when my God " made " that hill !.

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.

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: 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 - 04:59 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:36 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 - 08:36 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: 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 - 08:45 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: 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: 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: 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: 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?