Notre-Dame Cathedral (Paris) Fire

[Northern Light]

Except the state owns it - and it is arguably that the "state" benefits most from it (even more than RCC). Most of the tourists going there aren't likely going there to pray - and personally I think it is fair for the state to pay for what as arguably became a public (not just religious) symbol.

AoD

I have no issue w/the State paying, so long as the Church is a paying tenant, buys tenants insurance..... ? and that public use outside of mass is prioritized; plus any donations outside of mass (offerings) go to the state.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I have no issue w/the State paying, so long as the Church is a paying tenant, buys tenants insurance..... ? and that public use outside of mass is prioritized; plus any donations outside of mass (offerings) go to the state.

I don't know if all of the conditions you have listed are fair (like who is going to be able to afford to insure a building that is basically priceless) - but I would certainly agree with the church paying a nominal and reasonable sum as a tenant; and certainly donations outside religious activities should go into a general fund for upkeep and maintenance.

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

^ And this is going to tear the nation apart, rather than bring it together, unless managed well...if such can even be done.

"Vichy" takes on a whole new meaning...

 

[W. K. Lis]

The effort to rebuild Notre-Dame Cathedral could get help from an unlikely source: A video game

From link.

A fire on Monday devastated the iconic Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris.

The structure, including its two main towers, remains intact, but its spire collapsed before firefighters could contain the blaze.

French President Emmanuel Macron has vowed to rebuild the famous cathedral, tweeting in French: "We will rebuild it. All together."

One potential source of help in those efforts is the 2014 video game "Assassin's Creed Unity," which is set in Paris.

Notre-Dame Cathedral in the 2014 video game "Assassin's Creed Unity."

As detailed in a 2014 feature published in The Verge, Caroline Miousse, a Ubisoft level artist, spent two years poring over details of the cathedral to create as accurate a depiction as possible in the game.

"I made some other stuff in the game, but 80% of my time was spent on the Notre-Dame," she said at the time.

That's because the cathedral is a centerpiece in "Unity" that players can explore inside and out. The "Assassin's Creed" series is known for its lovingly detailed re-creations of historic places, and the Notre-Dame Cathedral in "Unity" is no exception.

The Verge's Andrew Webster wrote of Miousse's work on the cathedral: "She pored over photos to get the architecture just right, and worked with texture artists to make sure that each brick was as it should be."

Whether Ubisoft will offer its digital information to the French government remains to be seen — representatives didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

[doady]

Religion is just a crutch for weak-minded people. I wouldn't have minded at all if this building was destroyed completely. The French keep making a big deal about "secularism" but no surprise that secular obsession only applies to non-Christian religions.

 

[lenaitch]

Religion is just a crutch for weak-minded people. I wouldn't have minded at all if this building was destroyed completely. The French keep making a big deal about "secularism" but no surprise that secular obsession only applies to non-Christian religions.

And it seems that there are several million "weak minded people" who need their respective crutches. Such is humanity. if it had been Versailles , the Louvre or the Hermitage would have been sadder?

 

[steveintoronto]

^ And this is going to tear the nation apart, rather than bring it together, unless managed well...if such can even be done.

"Vichy" takes on a whole new meaning...

Top stories


WATCHING NOW Notre-Dame fire fuels yellow vest anger in France
News 1130
1 day ago


Tension in Paris as Yellow Vests protest on first Saturday since Notre-Dame fire
France 24
1 day ago

‘It’s breaking my heart’: Notre-Dame fire sparks anger among France’s Yellow Vests
Global News
2 days ago
More for france yellow jackets notre dame

- Google

 

[W. K. Lis]

That's not true. People don't become Christians because it makes their lives easier; if anything, it makes life more difficult for them. Suffering is part of the Christian vocation. As Christ suffered, so to do his followers. The disciples, Paul and James all suffered horribly, for decades.

Christianity thrives because there is strong historical evidence for its primary claim: Jesus' bodily resurrection.

There were and are people who want to see people suffer and be in pain. See link.

 

[Northern Light]

That is a non-sequitur. My point is that doady's remark is falsifiable. People don't become Christians to mitigate suffering and or to consciously delude themselves into believing a deliberate lie, in order to help them better deal with the inevitability of death.

For example, J. Warner Wallace is a homicide detective who was originally an atheist. In short: about 25 years ago, he visited a church with his wife, not of his own volition, bu to appease her. The pastor at said church pitched Jesus in a way that intrigued Wallace. This inspired him to go home and start reading the gospels and New Testament; not with the intention of becoming a Christian, but to merely glean Jesus' bits of wisdom in the gospels. As he began to read these accounts, however, he noticed the nature of the literary genre (the gospels are ancient biographies, similar to those written by Arrian and Plutarch about the life of Alexander The Great). They, along with Paul's letters (epistles) are historical accounts/eyewitness testimonies.

Given Wallace's expertise with respect to dealing with eyewitness reports, he started to piece together the various bits of historical evidence and he couldn't deny where they pointed. Eventually, this led to his conversion. He regularly says that he isn't a Christian because it works for him, rather, he is a Christian because it is historically true. The following clip doesn't address said evidence, but it serves to show that doady's sentiment does not reflect the reasons why people are or become Christians.

Please don't engage in this type of debate, irrespective of whether you feel others do or have.

Its not really one you can win; and it can only lead to hurt feelings/offense being taken.

This is not a forum about theology.

It may merit incidental mention; and in a forum of disproportionately well educated, urban, Canadians, one might expect a certain measure of derision too.

A view with which I am not unsympathetic.

Be that as it may, this is not the place; and an off-hand remark should not begin a theological discussion, probably in any thread in UT, but certainly not this one, where it is most certainly OT.

Yes, theology is OT in a thread about said building, where it is discussed here, primarily, for its architectural value, and its historical significance in a non-religious context.

 

[PinkLucy]

Let's keep it on topic, please.

 

[kEiThZ]

It may merit incidental mention; and in a forum of disproportionately well educated, urban, Canadians, one might expect a certain measure of derision too.

A view with which I am not unsympathetic.

This is some truly snobby BS and gatekeeping to boot.

 

[Northern Light]

This is some truly snobby BS and gatekeeping to boot.

Really?

Did you read the context in which it was written.

Two posters having an exchange over religion (of which I was not one).

Which was certainly OT to the core topic and which neither side was going to win.

I don't think your remark to be fair in that context at all.

Further, if you don't think religious discussion is likely to degenerate into hurtful name-calling when at least one party takes the former seriously and at least one other views that as intellectual heresy...........

Be that as it may............the only remotely 'snobby' thing you can accuse me of is not being unsympathetic with a derisive view of religious beliefs.

That I have a preference for discussing things in a logical manner, based on evidence and facts doesn't strike me as remotely snobby; perhaps a tad impolitic to express, but not a discussion I started nor cared to foster.

But one I do expect someone who happens to take 'faith' seriously to be aware of as a fairly pervasive view on this forum (which it is), and that's all I really said.

Snobby was never a part of it nor was BS

 

[narduch]

Edit: don't want to get involved.....

 

[Northern Light]

That is precisely what doady (not me) instigated when he said, “religion is just a crutch for weak-minded people.”

Your silence with respect to doady’s sentiment seems to betray tacit agreement with it, or at the very least, you were fine with the fact that it is both hurtful and highly insulting to every intelligent Christian; not to mention those of other religious convictions.



Are you insinuating that Christians, namely, don’t have logical and evidential reasons for their convictions? If that is what you mean, you can’t just casually make fallacious, unsupported comments like that without expecting your interlocutor(s) to press you for elucidation and ensuing dialogue.



I have no interest in pushing my faith on you, nor do I wish to judge you or anyone else, however, I would like to chat with you about that remark, as it demonstrates a common, preconceived notion that many non-believers have re Christians; namely, a misunderstanding of what faith means in a Christian context. We can chat in private, if you don’t want to do so in this thread, but I will respond here.

Faith, in the paradigm of Christianity, isn’t analogous to one closing their eyes and throwing their arms up in the air — absent of any evidence — and saying, ‘I believe.’ That is called, blind faith. No intellectual Christian holds to such thing, for that would be irrational. There are, however, strong bits of historical data that serve to provide Christians with an evidential faith. The latter is something that most non-Christians — and even many Christians, strangely — are unaware of. Without listing my arguments as to why I am a Christian, I will merely present you with the basic facts pertaining to the historical Jesus, so that you and others are at least aware of this information. Everyone ought to be, otherwise, one’s objections to Christian belief and the common ridicule and mockery that many dissenters espouse, comes across as being ill-informed.

There are four historical facts which must be explained by any adequate historical hypothesis. Virtually all ancient historians and New Testament scholars (Christian, Jewish and secular) affirm the following:

4 Established Facts About the Historical Jesus Affirmed by the Majority of Ancient Historians and New Testament Scholars (there are more, but these are the most crucial facts pertaining to the historical Jesus):

Fact #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin named, Joseph of Arimathea. The death of Jesus Christ on the cross is one of the most solid facts of history.

Fact #2: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.

Fact #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. This a fact which is universally acknowledged today by New Testament scholars.

Fact #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead, despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.

Sources: The Resurrection of Jesus: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/wri.../jesus-of-nazareth/the-resurrection-of-jesus/

Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/med...r-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman/

I am not going to engage in this debate here. My whole point was that we should stay clear of the topic of religion, and if someone raises it, other than in the most peripheral, matter-of-fact way (ie. discussing Separate School Funding in Ontario), one should not reply.

There is nothing to be gained.

 

[narduch]

I'm interested in the rebuild of this cathedral.

I'm not interested in a bunch of biased 'historians' that want to prove their religious leader was real.