shiloh
Senior Member
Posts: 723
|
Post by shiloh on Apr 10, 2010 16:36:51 GMT -5
A new dining shed and kitchen under construction. Brownstown IL convention grounds. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 10, 2010 17:48:55 GMT -5
A new dining shed and kitchen under construction. Brownstown IL convention grounds. Wow, we just had a tent! When it rained and wind blew, it was quite chilly and wet on the end seats!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2010 21:38:23 GMT -5
Shiloh, some questions if I may? Why did you post this picture on the internet? Did you take this photograph yourself? Did anyone give you permission to post it? Can you tell us your real name and what church you attend?
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Apr 10, 2010 21:45:30 GMT -5
A new dining shed and kitchen under construction. Brownstown IL convention grounds. Wow, we just had a tent! When it rained and wind blew, it was quite chilly and wet on the end seats!! I really enjoy convention stew when it's cold outside. Yum! fs
|
|
|
Post by déjà vu on Apr 10, 2010 22:08:38 GMT -5
it's nice to see the fellowship prosper in IL. Money seems to be no object!
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 10, 2010 22:16:03 GMT -5
New church in a city of under 100,000. Rumored to have cost $5 - 10 million. Some stone imported from China:
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 10, 2010 22:16:07 GMT -5
Wow, we just had a tent! When it rained and wind blew, it was quite chilly and wet on the end seats!! I really enjoy convention stew when it's cold outside. Yum! fs Me too. I absolutely loved the stew and the breakfast hash potatoes. Also, we had hot chocolate after last meeting that I really liked too.
|
|
|
Post by nitro on Apr 10, 2010 22:16:51 GMT -5
Shiloh, some questions if I may? Why did you post this picture on the internet? Did you take this photograph yourself? Did anyone give you permission to post it? Can you tell us your real name and what church you attend? You working for Russia? nitro
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 10, 2010 23:30:21 GMT -5
New church in a city of under 100,000. Rumored to have cost $5 - 10 million. Disgraceful. One of the things the Fellowship has got right is that it is the Holy Spirit that sanctifies a place; and that where ever the Spirit moves, there is our cathedral, our church. Even a stable can become a place of God if the Word and the Spirit are in the "temples" of the hearts of believers. When will such opulence in the name of Christ be extinct?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2010 8:34:14 GMT -5
A building costing several million to be used 150 days of the year could be a more practical use of money than one costing a half million to be used 4 days of the year.
Some churches view their building as an integral part of their local outreach program. It's highly visible in the community and the doors are always open. Getting in and getting in touch with other believers is not a difficult task. It's a much more daunting task for people to get in touch with an invisible church.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 11, 2010 8:34:36 GMT -5
Emy - Could you please post the name, denomination and location of the church photo?
Thanx, Cherie
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 11, 2010 8:52:46 GMT -5
Emy - Could you please post the name, denomination and location of the church photo? Thanx, Cherie I am sometimes surprised that you consider yourself a researcher, Cherie. Using the image link, I was able to find all of the above details within literally 30 seconds. The name of the church is Sts. Anne and Joachim Catholic Church, in Fargo, North Dakota. According to Wikipedia ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fargo,_North_Dakota), the population of Fargo is 99,200, with a wider metropolitan population of about 200,000. The church is located on 5202 25th Street (South), Fargo. There is a "construction history" given at the church's website at www.stsaaj.org/building/construction_history.aspx. The power of Google, and the knowledge to use research tools.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 11, 2010 8:56:32 GMT -5
A building costing several million to be used 150 days of the year could be a more practical use of money than one costing a half million to be used 4 days of the year. Some churches view their building as an integral part of their local outreach program. It's highly visible in the community and the doors are always open. Getting in and getting in touch with other believers is not a difficult task. It's a much more daunting task for people to get in touch with an invisible church. In which case, it would be even better to construct a building costing a modest $300,000 which could be used all year. I find it hard to see how the expense of millions of dollars can be justified on any building for civilian use. But then, I find it distasteful that millionaires spend bags of money on lavish homes they will use 365 days in a year as well - I detest all forms of excess (more than what is needed). But then again, that is just my opinion. Maybe a leftover from my student communist radicalism.
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Apr 11, 2010 9:08:57 GMT -5
New church in a city of under 100,000. Rumored to have cost $5 - 10 million. Disgraceful. One of the things the Fellowship has got right is that it is the Holy Spirit that sanctifies a place; and that where ever the Spirit moves, there is our cathedral, our church. Even a stable can become a place of God if the Word and the Spirit are in the "temples" of the hearts of believers. When will such opulence in the name of Christ be extinct? What is disgraceful about it? Would the Holy Spirit refuse to enter into such a place? What is the difference if a person worships here or in a tent at convention or in their livingroom on Sunday mornings? Is God not present where two or more meet together in his name? I rather thought God was concerned with the state of one's heart, no? I've seen some very nice professing homes and some very nice cars at convention. Where is the line drawn as to how much is too much? If we are going to condemn a church for its cost, should we not then start condemning some professing folks that have a little too much? Or does wearing your hair in a bun and wearing dowdy clothing (at least to convention and on Sundays) negate a person's material possessions?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Apr 11, 2010 9:14:10 GMT -5
Well, when you look at cost versus gain...... Like clearday mentioned, a local church is visible to all, accessible to all, and able to be utilized every day of the year. Also, churches built such as this one tend to last a long time. If you try to calculate the number of years in use, days in use, and all that it really isn't that expensive. I imagine it wouldn't have been built if the Catholic church hadn't seen a need for it. Scott
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2010 9:17:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Apr 11, 2010 9:20:05 GMT -5
Who decided women have to wear dresses and men can wear pants? I mean at what point in history did someone say, this is the way it is! Like bras... I don't have a problem keeping my boobs from swaying and drooping, but wasn't it a guy who invented the bra? Seems like us women are letting men dictate. Women Unite!! Burn the bra! Burn the skirt! Join the Happy Naked Pagan Dance! ;D
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Apr 11, 2010 9:35:32 GMT -5
~~ Modesty is the KEY! In Asia the professing women wearing pants to work in the rice paddy fields, riding the motor bikes to work, and ao dai (combination of pants/dressess=modesty). I don't think it's very modest for a professing women to climb up a ladder with wearing a dress, or riding on the motor bike wearing dresses. Climbing ladders in skirts is the norm at preps. Has been for years and years and years. fs
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2010 9:46:17 GMT -5
A building costing several million to be used 150 days of the year could be a more practical use of money than one costing a half million to be used 4 days of the year. Some churches view their building as an integral part of their local outreach program. It's highly visible in the community and the doors are always open. Getting in and getting in touch with other believers is not a difficult task. It's a much more daunting task for people to get in touch with an invisible church. ~~ I know Manhattan convention meeting sheds owners have used it for RV, mobile homes rentals during the year, some have used it for the workers and friends funerals, shelter places for emergency, etc. It is up to the owners what they want to use it for during the year.
At Boring convention the owners stored their farming equipment in the meeting sheds. Maybe the owners could use it for other purposes but that is up to them to decide wouldn't you say?
The cost of 200,000 dollars to 5-10 millions the difference is too much.
I agree with Scott's post, which was one of the points I was trying to make. When you do a proper analysis of the building costs, several million is not as expensive as it sounds when looked at in terms of annual use + # of years of use. Plus, when you add to it the community profile it gives a church and you have an intangible benefit. Also, a regular church building is fully in control of the church for long term use. Technically, the money being put into convention buildings could be lost the day the project is finished as there are no agreements in place for future use between the convention owners and those who paid for it. I'm not pushing one method or the other. The methods aren't really much different from each other when you look at the big picture.
|
|
|
Post by Jim Niles on Apr 11, 2010 9:46:56 GMT -5
Will this new building be used for machinery storage the rest of the year or just set empty? Seems like Scott said to be true. In our town our churches are used every day for different reasons. One is used 5 days a week for a daycare not operated for the church. Another houses a free will clothing store for the public in need of donations. Another holds blood drives etc.... These are all things that help all denominations. Seems more Christ-like then keeping them secluded to a chosen few. just my thoughts. Jim
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2010 9:50:39 GMT -5
Here is a picture of one what some believe was the last dining place of Jesus, for what it is worth... So is your point that we should be building all meeting places to look like that?
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on Apr 11, 2010 9:59:11 GMT -5
~~ I know Manhattan convention meeting sheds owners have used it for RV, mobile homes rentals during the year, some have used it for the workers and friends funerals, shelter places for emergency, etc. It is up to the owners what they want to use it for during the year.
At Boring convention the owners stored their farming equipment in the meeting sheds. Maybe the owners could use it for other purposes but that is up to them to decide wouldn't you say?
The cost of 200,000 dollars to 5-10 millions the difference is too much.
I agree with Scott's post, which was one of the points I was trying to make. When you do a proper analysis of the building costs, several million is not as expensive as it sounds when looked at in terms of annual use + # of years of use. Plus, when you add to it the community profile it gives a church and you have an intangible benefit. Also, a regular church building in fully in control of the church for long term use. Technically, the money being put into convention buildings could be lost the day the project is finished as there are no agreements in place for future use between the convention owners and those who paid for it. I'm not pushing one method or the other. The methods aren't really much different from each other when you look at the big picture. very wise. My professing cousins in California spent 3 million dollars on their own personal home--(and that doesn't include the furnishings and decorations and their toys---expensive cars, a boat etc) all of which has no purpose except to glorify and entertain them personally. (and their home isn't even a meeting facility--although they do entertain the workers quite a bit). Now in my opinion that is a lot of money to spend just to have a lavish home. 6000 square feet for 3 people? That may be a bit selfish. And yet I am sure that they would criticize a church building (in the same price range) that will serve the community, multiple times per day, 365 days a year, probably for many many years. BTW--some would be shocked at what some of those convention sheds cost. I did see an analysis the other day--they said that if my Church destroyed all of our art treasures (melting down the gold) that we could provide $3.15 to every person in the world. We could lose forever 90% of the worlds art treasures--but the upside is that we could use that money to take everyone out to McDonalds and treat them to a happy meal (if they called them "sad meals" no one would buy them
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Apr 11, 2010 10:02:11 GMT -5
I miss meeting tents. I always liked the way they flopped around in the wind.
But, anyway, I like God's cathedral best and wish we could ditch all church buildings and sit out in the open. I guess that's kinda radical. ;D
fs
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 11, 2010 10:02:15 GMT -5
Who decided women have to wear dresses and men can wear pants? I mean at what point in history did someone say, this is the way it is! Like bras... I don't have a problem keeping my boobs from swaying and drooping, but wasn't it a guy who invented the bra? Seems like us women are letting men dictate. Women Unite!! Burn the bra! Burn the skirt! Join the Happy Naked Pagan Dance! ;D "Us women"? I did not realise all women were a homogeneous conglomerate that reflected one particular viewpoint. Feminists, like masculinists, often believe they are representatives for the whole gender. I felt similarly annoyed when I read a book on "Manhood" and the author advised us all to tear off our neck ties and burn them.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Apr 11, 2010 10:08:51 GMT -5
I felt similarly annoyed when I read a book on "Manhood" and the author advised us all to tear off our neck ties and burn them. Probably because it doesn't make any sense. Why would a book on "manhood" advise men to stop dressing like men? fs
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 11, 2010 10:15:23 GMT -5
Disgraceful. One of the things the Fellowship has got right is that it is the Holy Spirit that sanctifies a place; and that where ever the Spirit moves, there is our cathedral, our church. Even a stable can become a place of God if the Word and the Spirit are in the "temples" of the hearts of believers. When will such opulence in the name of Christ be extinct? What is disgraceful about it? Would the Holy Spirit refuse to enter into such a place? What is the difference if a person worships here or in a tent at convention or in their livingroom on Sunday mornings? Is God not present where two or more meet together in his name? I rather thought God was concerned with the state of one's heart, no? I've seen some very nice professing homes and some very nice cars at convention. Where is the line drawn as to how much is too much? If we are going to condemn a church for its cost, should we not then start condemning some professing folks that have a little too much? Or does wearing your hair in a bun and wearing dowdy clothing (at least to convention and on Sundays) negate a person's material possessions? My opinion Annan. I don't intend to justify or defend it. Your use of the word "condemn" irritates me. It seems that for you, any form of disagreement is condemnation. I do not know whether this is simply a sloppy use of the language, or your sincere view of the world. In answer to your fusillade of questions, I believe the dividing line is "need". If a person has enough to live comfortably, or if something is sufficient to serve a given purpose, then that should be enough; excess wealth can be given to the poor. As Paul said, " contentment with godliness is great gain". I disapprove of all forms of excess and materialism. Now that you are citing from the Scriptures does that mean you have joined us "desperate fools"? I am pleased to be thought a fool for approving of poverty for the church as a Christian virtue (for the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who perish). I could not put it in words better than one of my favourite singers and composers:
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 11, 2010 10:19:20 GMT -5
I miss meeting tents. I always liked the way they flopped around in the wind. But, anyway, I like God's cathedral best and wish we could ditch all church buildings and sit out in the open. I guess that's kinda radical. ;D fs It's as radical as Christ and his Apostles who preached on the banks of Galilee, in the desert, and on the mountainsides. It would be wonderful if Christendom recaptured that spirit of our Blessed Founder, the Lord Jesus Christ, the one true God!
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Apr 11, 2010 11:16:30 GMT -5
Lead the way, Jason! Lead the way!
|
|