|
Post by freespirit on Apr 11, 2010 12:29:53 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 Annan, to me this sounds like maybe you give too much of your power to men. A lot of women wear beautiful underwear because they happen to like wearing it. (I used to work in a lingerie store.) I don't wear skirts all the time, but I enjoy the way soft fabrics feel when they swirl against my legs. Also, because I have female plumbing, it is easier/more practical to, um--how do I word this?--use the (lack of) bathroom when one is hiking in the great outdoors. I dress the body that God gave to me in ways that work for me. It's not about men... fs
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2010 14:41:15 GMT -5
It is not the buildings themselves that is important, it is the "inner sanctuary" within them which counts, because that is where God resides.
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Apr 11, 2010 15:16:29 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! I definitely think that Jesus and the apostles had the right idea! ;D Cathedrals have interesting architecture, but to me (I know this sounds quaint) they aren't as wonderful as flowers. Luke 12:27 Consider how the lilies grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. fs
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Apr 11, 2010 16:09:21 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 Annan, to me this sounds like maybe you give too much of your power to men. A lot of women wear beautiful underwear because they happen to like wearing it. (I used to work in a lingerie store.) I don't wear skirts all the time, but I enjoy the way soft fabrics feel when they swirl against my legs. Also, because I have female plumbing, it is easier/more practical to, um--how do I word this?--use the (lack of) bathroom when one is hiking in the great outdoors. I dress the body that God gave to me in ways that work for me. It's not about men... fs Quote from above, women wear beautiful underwear because the like wearing it. Reminds me of professing women who say they like having their hair long because they like it or wearing it in a bun because they like wearing it that way. Or, Muslim women who are completely covered head to foot say they wear it because they like wearing it. What Annan appears to be saying is that we grow up accepting that we will wear these things. We are programmed to wear them from birth first by our parents and then by society.So as we have no choice we like to make it as beautiful as we can. I'm not saying don't wear underwear, I would not want to wear floppy breasts or no panties but just the comment above made me think of cases where women do or wear things because they have been brought up that way but say they do it because they like it. I don't see where Annan says that she gives away her power to men and comforms to traditional dress code. She is saying that men introduced these and women until recently have not realized they have a choice. It has only been the last 100 years when women have stood up and realised they have a voice too. Freespirit, would you wear long pants to convention or would you give your power to men?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 11, 2010 16:18:22 GMT -5
Seems to me the problem with any building is the amount of pride of the natural it brings out in whomever....I've been shocked at the pride expressed by the workers and friends of their "new" conv. buildings. Which also I hear it expressed by those who are of the opulent church buildings as well.
I think godliness about building would be a thankfulness to have such that is not an eye sore, it is functional and it obeys the laws of the land. Out side of that, the "feelings" that people get over their church buildings are excessive.
It's kind of like those of us who can't afford fancy homes.....just being thankful for the provisions that God has given us...I don't think He ever meant for us to have more then that which supplies our needs.
..None of us are going to take the possessions, homes, fine church buildings with us into eternity.....kind of reminded me of what Solomon said about what happens to all the possessions, riches man may gather together...who gets them when that man or woman is gone into eternity....the answer is this:
Someone who has not worked for them.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 11, 2010 16:26:59 GMT -5
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: Thank you, Jason....I'd never heard of Michael Card before....I'm so glad to know about him...quite a talent....
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Apr 11, 2010 17:57:24 GMT -5
Freespirit, would you wear long pants to convention or would you give your power to men? I have worn pants at convention. No big deal. fs
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Apr 11, 2010 18:17:00 GMT -5
I'm not saying don't wear underwear, I would not want to wear floppy breasts or no panties but just the comment above made me think of cases where women do or wear things because they have been brought up that way but say they do it because they like it. Maybe you don't want to burn your bra. Or maybe you do. I dunno. As an adult you have the right to choose whether or not to wear one. I don't think you should do or not do something just because you were forced to do it as a kid. JMO. fs
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Apr 11, 2010 18:54:16 GMT -5
I can tell you not wearing a bra in some kinds of activity is agony...so I'm not going to knock their invention or their inventor(s)....there are worse things then wearing clothing appropriate for one's age and activity!
|
|
lauri
Senior Member
Posts: 324
|
Post by lauri on Apr 11, 2010 19:02:25 GMT -5
things sure have changed if a woman can wear pants to convention and its no big deal??? It's been many years since I've been to a convention, but I did wear jeans to a Sunday morning meeting (visiting mom). I got my share of looks.... I just gotta wonder if you are speaking honestly here, FS... or just ok with yourself so you can ignore the judgemental looks?
|
|
|
Post by freespirit on Apr 11, 2010 19:06:42 GMT -5
From wiki:
In October 2009, Somalia’s hardline Islamist group Al-Shabaab forced women in public to shake their breasts at gunpoint to see if they wore bras, which they called "un-Islamic". Those found to be wearing a bra were publicly whipped because bras are seen as "deceptive" and to violate their interpretation of Sharia law.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 11, 2010 20:20:28 GMT -5
Emy - Could you please post the name, denomination and location of the church photo? Thanx, Cherie I can but prefer not to. Not wanting to bash any denomination. If you PM me and tell me why you ask, I might tell you privately.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 11, 2010 20:22:08 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. Shoulda read on! I actually had supposed that it wouldn't be too difficult for anyone to trace the image.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 11, 2010 20:27:23 GMT -5
Lead the way, Jason! Lead the way! I was going to say the same thing when you were urging women to strip off, burn their undergarments, and rise up against men.
|
|
|
Post by Done4now on Apr 12, 2010 1:20:31 GMT -5
Lead the way, Jason! Lead the way! I was going to say the same thing when you were urging women to strip off, burn their undergarments, and rise up against men. ;D
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Apr 12, 2010 1:46:01 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. Who said it was only going to be used 4 days a year? The Church is meant to be the body of people who follow Jesus not some edifice. How hard is it to get in touch with Jesus to see where His Church is?
|
|
|
Post by Happy Feet on Apr 12, 2010 2:39:22 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. Who said it was only going to be used 4 days a year? The Church is meant to be the body of people who follow Jesus not some edifice. How hard is it to get in touch with Jesus to see where His Church is? Very hard when it remains invisible. Or perhaps wearing ones religion on the back of their head accounts for visibility. There is a difference between a church building, where believers meet to worship or bring others into fellowship and The Church, a group of people made up of believers.
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Apr 12, 2010 2:43:54 GMT -5
Who said it was only going to be used 4 days a year? The Church is meant to be the body of people who follow Jesus not some edifice. How hard is it to get in touch with Jesus to see where His Church is? Very hard when it remains invisible. Or perhaps wearing ones religion on the back of their head accounts for visibility. So you don't believe Jesus has the power to show His Church to whom He chooses without visible means?
|
|
|
Post by kiwi on Apr 12, 2010 2:47:15 GMT -5
There is a difference between a church building, where believers meet to worship or bring others into fellowship and The Church, a group of people made up of believers. Might be good idea then to refer to the building as a church building rather than just the/a church then aye?
|
|
|
Post by jason on Apr 12, 2010 3:59:18 GMT -5
The doctrine of Christ's Invisible Church is a good, orthodox Protestant doctrine, emerging from the Reformation. Kiwi is quite right: the Church is made up of all God's people of faith, not of bricks and mortar.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Sargison on Apr 12, 2010 5:26:00 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. The Diocese of Fargo has a population of 84,190 Catholics. That is 24 times the total number of friends in this country give or take a few. The total value of late model Mercs lined up at the seven conventions here being about the cost of the church construction, I would say the Mick's are getting far greater value for money. And Jason, there is nothing like a wife, kids and mortgage to deal to your leftover student communist radicalism.
|
|
shiloh
Senior Member
Posts: 723
|
Post by shiloh on Apr 12, 2010 6:48:05 GMT -5
Seems like the 2000 Altamont NY fiasco has led to a rash of new convention shed and dining shed construction across the Kingdom. New conventions in Hawaii, New Mexico (Mountainair), California, and new sheds in Yellow Springs and Shoals. New sleeping quarters in Knoxville TN. And new cookhouse and dining sheds in Brownstown and Madisonville KY. You can probably think of more examples in eastern USA.
Altamont NY caught everyone off guard. And with the internet information and bad publicity, overseers began a move to upgrade convention grounds.
Nothing wrong with these grounds. But they consume so much money and time. Renting a church camp would be simplier.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2010 7:38:53 GMT -5
Seems like the 2000 Altamont NY fiasco has led to a rash of new convention shed and dining shed construction across the Kingdom. New conventions in Hawaii, New Mexico (Mountainair), California, and new sheds in Yellow Springs and Shoals. New sleeping quarters in Knoxville TN. And new cookhouse and dining sheds in Brownstown and Madisonville KY. You can probably think of more examples in eastern USA. Altamont NY caught everyone off guard. And with the internet information and bad publicity, overseers began a move to upgrade convention grounds. Nothing wrong with these grounds. But they consume so much money and time. Renting a church camp would be simplier. While Altamont may have been an impetus for advancing code upgrades more quickly, that process was already well underway at many conventions in the West. In the '80's workers were becoming well aware of the need to upgrade and a lot of work was done at many conventions by 2000. One of the leading conventions in this regard is Glen Valley BC. Glen Valley was a replacement convention and was built to the codes. I'm not sure of the completion date but it was around the mid '80's.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 12, 2010 7:52:58 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. I am guessing the question was to make a point and not gain knowledge. If it was to gain knowledge then I agree with your research statement.
|
|
will
Senior Member
Posts: 516
|
Post by will on Apr 12, 2010 10:49:37 GMT -5
How does this sort of construction on private property work from a tax standpoint? I'm not accusing; I'm just curious. In the U.S. we pay property tax -- a new building would bump a farm's assessment and property taxes. Does the owner of the farm just take that on as part of his "duty/tithe"? What about the "gift", then, of the building? Do they get stuck for income tax on that? Maybe they get some use as a machine shed the rest of the year to help justify this. Are there any convention grounds where "the church" is the deed holder? Have they tried to be exempt from property taxes as a church?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 12, 2010 11:45:45 GMT -5
How does this sort of construction on private property work from a tax standpoint? I'm not accusing; I'm just curious. In the U.S. we pay property tax -- a new building would bump a farm's assessment and property taxes. Does the owner of the farm just take that on as part of his "duty/tithe"? What about the "gift", then, of the building? Do they get stuck for income tax on that? Maybe they get some use as a machine shed the rest of the year to help justify this. Are there any convention grounds where "the church" is the deed holder? Have they tried to be exempt from property taxes as a church? The improvements would increase the value of the peoperty and be a nexus for taxation The improvements would increase the basis of the property. The church is not a legal entity and therefore cannot own anything. The financial arrangements of paying the increased taxes or what happens when/if the property is liquidated is handled on a case by case basis - there are different circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 12, 2010 11:51:12 GMT -5
How does this sort of construction on private property work from a tax standpoint? I'm not accusing; I'm just curious. In the U.S. we pay property tax -- a new building would bump a farm's assessment and property taxes. Does the owner of the farm just take that on as part of his "duty/tithe"? What about the "gift", then, of the building? Do they get stuck for income tax on that? Maybe they get some use as a machine shed the rest of the year to help justify this. Are there any convention grounds where "the church" is the deed holder? Have they tried to be exempt from property taxes as a church? That's something I have been wondering too. If they are not a registered church then I would say not. However, if they are not a registered church how do the owners justify things as right offs?
|
|
|
Post by emy on Apr 12, 2010 16:43:55 GMT -5
How does this sort of construction on private property work from a tax standpoint? I'm not accusing; I'm just curious. In the U.S. we pay property tax -- a new building would bump a farm's assessment and property taxes. Does the owner of the farm just take that on as part of his "duty/tithe"? What about the "gift", then, of the building? Do they get stuck for income tax on that? Maybe they get some use as a machine shed the rest of the year to help justify this. Are there any convention grounds where "the church" is the deed holder? Have they tried to be exempt from property taxes as a church? The improvements would increase the value of the peoperty and be a nexus for taxation The improvements would increase the basis of the property. The church is not a legal entity and therefore cannot own anything. The financial arrangements of paying the increased taxes or what happens when/if the property is liquidated is handled on a case by case basis - there are different circumstances. Rational, maybe you should set up a page on this site to give lessons in common sense. It could be the 5th door down on the right! Any of you who wonder about these things -- have you ever asked people you know who own convention grounds? They would be the best source. But I suppose there may be people reading here who are owners.... ?
|
|