Only 50/50 chance Notre Dame can be saved

Post Reply New Topic

If the Parisians can use it, most likely the tourists will be able to use it, too.

Respect of all kinds must be paid to it, though.

It's a building, an artifice, a product of human hands. No more respect should be paid to Notre Dame Cathedral than what is paid to any other church or tomb.

I don't know that it is any more significant architecturally than other cathedrals. It's more famous than others because of the Hugo novel and the movies based on it. To me a cathedral is artwork, like a huge intricate sculpture. I like the craftsmanship of them.

You pay respect to it. Because the Catholics want you to.

Just like I would want people to respect a famous synagogue and mosque. Because that’s what the Jews and Muslims want.

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 26 Dec 2019, 1:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Many, many people.

A strange thing for a theist to say.

Including the respect awarded to the All-Mighty Tourist Dollar!

Who says I'm the cynical type?

I don't give two s**ts about the "almighty tourist dollar."

The Cathedral of Notre Dame is an historic place. That's the way I feel about it.

The Catholics think it's a precious place. And I respect that.

Just like people think the Taj Mahal is a precious place--and I agree that it is precious. It was built by a Muslim Mughal ruler in Agra, India. I hope people would give a damn if that were destroyed.

I used to hear a lot of religious people poo-pooing the idea of a grand place of worship.
Some suggested the appreciation of "The Lord" was a more personal activity and didn't need such ostentation.

Do you think Jesus would approve?
Or would he have embraced a more humble approach, such as donating the vast amounts of energy and wealth that were needed in building the man-made structure, to the needy?
Hmmm.

There is "spirituality",
And then there is: "True Spirituality".

"Many, many people" minus 1.

You're not nearly as logical as you think you are. It is perfectly fine to build a nice place to pray. We dedicate money and time to public libraries that are worth millions of dollars. People come in and use them to read, to study, and to look at the architecture. Museums are the same way, as are art galleries, national parks--why, even the old railroad stations used to be landmarks. It was a tragedy when they closed Penn Station and modernized it. If public buildings for secular purposes can be beautiful, then there should be no harm in an even more beautiful place built for the purposes of religion.

In the closing years of the Dark Ages and the beginning of the early Middle Ages, two great monastic houses had a sort of rivalry. There was Cluny, and there was Clairvaux. The Cluniac monks lived poor in the lap of luxury, because they were thrifty and industrious and tended to make their church as beautiful as possible. Granted, they were a bit over the top--rather like a Victorian parlor, the church was crammed with reliefs and paintings and whatever else they made. It was pretty impressive, so they say, but...it didn't impress Bernard of Clairvaux.

Bernard of Clairvaux was a Cistercian monk. His own monks lived austerely, and their monasteries (to this day!) are almost bare inside. Cistercian decor would give Marie Kondo a heart attack. I used to live across the street from one of their monasteries. Talking to a young fellow named Aelred I realized that here was a man who was quite content to have given up his entire outside-the-walls life. He had kept only his cheap battery wristwatch and his eyeglasses, and even those were now technically monastery property which his brother monks could come "borrow" at any time. His clothes were rough robes looking like medieval leftovers.

Who is right?

Everybody.

Beautiful churches are made as an expression of the human abilities to make Art. Art is good in and of itself, because it raises the human soul outside of itself. I am an artist but without beauty around me I cannot create new art. The Cathedral of Notre Dame is quite like a lot of other old cathedrals. Every single one of them was unique, every single one took decades and sometimes centuries to build, and they did it out of love for God, and out of the mighty childlike delight all craftsmen find in making things.

The plain churches are beautiful when they are filled with good people, with people who have given their entire selves. The people in them are like the wax candles on the altar--made of pure materials they burn themselves away to give light. Or like the hollow pipes in the organ, they only resonate the wind of the Holy Spirit (and like organ pipes spend most of their time sitting silently in readiness.)

"True Spirituality" sounds as bland and dull as sawdust and as self-righteous as a political convention.
Remember that in the Bible the only one to complain about the cost of honoring Christ was Judas Iscariot who thought the cost of the ointment brought by Mary Magdalene would have been better given to the poor.

If somebody else cares about a thing of beauty, why can’t you care that the other person cares?

What harm is being done when somebody cares about a 12th century cathedral?

Why do you care that I don't care?
What harm does my not caring do?
Are you my luver?

OK,
Where does it say in my life contact that I have to care about what every person in the universe cares about?
Do you care about my jar full of cat drool?

And how is my not caring about a man-made structure a hanging offence? (That was hyperbole)
And where do I say or imply that anyone who cares shouldn't care?

Ever "heard" me say:
"To each their own".
"Whatever floats your boat".
"Whatever bakes your cookies.

All I am saying is *I* don't care,
And I have valid, well thought out reasons for not caring.
But if it is your thing, go for it.

But to be clear,
Whilst I will defend your right to do/think your own thing/way,
It doesn't mean I necessarily respect your viewpoint.

We have done this before, btw.
Remember the Aztec human sacrifice discussion we had?
Same deal.

What I do care about is someone trying to deny me freedom of thought through emotional blackmail.
"HOW DARE YOU!" not care about what other people care about?
I dare.
I will always dare where it counts.

You do realise that there are times I am in sympathy with someone else's POV?

And what I also care about is that I may have been transported to bizarro land.

One last thing.
Remember who started this conversation between you and me.
You criticised my point of view.
I am merely defending my intellectual territory.

So, am I a bully again simply because I have a differing opinion here too?

Who's the savage responsible for the fire?

Because they know that Cathedral gets more action in a day then they will get in their lifetime.