Wait, don't I recognize that name? Wait a second... This is THE John Scalzi? When I was a kid I pulled a paperback off of my dad's bookshelf, Old Man's War. Great, take your brain out trashy sci fi, and I mean that in the most positive way possible, it left a big impression on me. Incredible writer, cool that he is still around and has a blog.
He's not only still around, he still writes awesome books.
But yeah, I too was reading without noticing, until I came to the sentence "None of the Scalzis are particularly religious", and thought "wait, Scalzi like John Scalzi? It's not... It is?!"
>take your brain out trashy sci fi, and I mean that in the most positive way possible
that's the guy. he's got a new book coming out this month, and is a fun follow on social media too (now on bluesky). i feel like he would be flattered by your description.
You're in for a treat if you haven't read him since OMW. He's one of the more prolific "popular SF" writers around, has won a ton of awards, and usually has a book out about every year or so.
They use the sign outside for the most hilarious messages. On Google Maps you can see two versions, "IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A SIGN HERE IT IS", and "SORRY KIDS SCHOOL TIME AGAIN".
If you’re lucky enough to do something like this I can’t recommend it enough. I bought a second house in my neighborhood instead of renting an office and it made work a hell of a lot more fun. Felt healthier too, because I could open windows or take walks.
I've "terrified" contractors when I've called them on their BS. I once had a contractor tell me it was okay to notch 50% into a load bearing floor joist. I quickly pulled up the building code and his face went pale...
> and despite the actions of certain science fiction authors in the past offering precedent, I have no desire to start a cult
> I want to recondition the old pastor’s study, get the organ functional again, and we want to make the sanctuary level more easily accessible via ramps and such
I mean, he _claims_ not to want to start a cult, but I feel like, if starting a cult, these are exactly the sort of facilities one would be recommissioning. Especially the organ.
Granted, for a moment I thought this was Charles Stross (the other Very Online sci-fi author), which would be _far_ more worrying, considering.
Now, where's the sympathy for the effective altruists who bought a castle for the same financial reasons? They were widely mocked for their apparent exuberance.
1919. Pfft! My cousin has bought and is converting a church where the oldest bits are 12th century (although the tower is 17th century, and it was extensively redone in the 1830s). At the rate he works, he's probably going to be working on it for the rest of his life.
Hmmm, if you're starting a cult as a way to tap into tax exemptions, I suspect your accountants and lawyers would have long heated arguments about exactly how to best structure the church building ownership or lease/rental. Is your cult's meeting place a capex or an opex?
While he doesn't explicitly say it, I'm going to bet that the renovation, and likely even just the essential parts (roof, rewiring etc) of the renovation cost considerably more than that.
Only in the most desirable of desirable areas. I live on the east coast (almost literally, only a few blocks from the ocean) and a similar church sold last year in the town next door for just over $300,000.
If you wanted to actually use it day to day though, it would cost so much more. Just the temperature control for such area would be either super expensive or require a complete redesign of the space to split it into lower floors.
It would, but that's partly a matter of size, and a large house will cost a lot to heat or cool as well. I'm in the UK (cool climate), and there are a lot of smaller chapels which have been converted to use as houses quite successfully.
Branford is within 15 minutes of Piqua and Greensville which are both mid-sized towns that have everything you need for everyday life, and a lot of what you'd want. To me that is much more relevant than how far it is to a large city, which you would be visiting much less frequently. 15 minutes is a normal commuting time within a city, so not really the middle of nowhere.
Honestly, Americans are probably more tolerant and accepting of long distances compared to most peer countries. 45 minutes of driving to hit some kind of city is very far most of the time in Japan or most of Europe, where the population density is higher than the states.
Growing up in the UK, 45 minutes was about the ‘if we’re going there in the evening we’re going to need to get a hotel’ boundary. Now I live in the US it’s a short drive.
It’s amazing how perspective changes. If you haven’t experienced it I suspect it’s impossible to understand, because this feels crazy to write. It’s true though.
It is probably true that in a majority of those land areas (Finland, Sweden, Norway) you are more than 45 minutes of driving from the next proper city.
However, the proportion of people who live like that is not very high. People mostly live where other people live.
All a matter of perspective, I suppose. I'd call that the middle of nowhere, but I've always lived either in a medium-sized (>1 million people) city or its suburbs.
In particular it doesn't seem to have public transport at _all_, at least per Google Maps; I'd consider anywhere where your only option to get to a city was to drive to be serious middle of nowhere, though I gather that this is a more common condition in the US.
I lived in a place that was a 30 min drive from a similar sized place (Cambridge, UK). It totally felt like the middle of nowhere. It's not so much about the numbers but about the feeling of a place:
* No transport links means total dependence on car,
* No natural features of any note, in particular no rivers or hills,
* Unknown to people outside of the very small population that lives there,
* Hard to convince people to come and visit you and when they do they're disappointed.
I've noticed something, and I don't know if it's too much of a generalization but I see it a fair bit, so maybe it's generally true.
Generally speaking, non-religious people understand church to be a building. Whereas religious people understand that the people are the church, the building is just a building.
Now granted some of them are really nice buildings, and some are really old, and you can be both religious and really like the building, but the two concepts are still separate.
In other words, to the religious, the use of the building for non-religious purposes is "shrug".
Whereas to the non-religious the idea of turning a church building into something else is some kind of desecration. (Obviously this isn't the case for this article, but I noted the first question as him getting that response, and also the immediate rebuttal that he's starting a cult.)
Anyway, I thought it an interesting, if tangentially observation. And as with all generalizations there will be lots of exceptions.
> In other words, to the religious, the use of the building for non-religious purposes is "shrug".
This isn’t accurate except for perhaps certain parts of Protestantism. To Catholics, Orthodox, probably portions of the Church of England etc, ie a majority of Christianity church buildings are holy and specially blessed. They hold the Eucharist in the Tabernacle which these Churches believe is the body and blood of Jesus under the guise of bread which is the most holy thing for them. In order for these buildings to be used for any other purpose all the holy things would need to be removed and the building specifically deconsecrated.
The Church building is only considered Holy when Christ is considered present for Eucharist. Should it be removed along with the Altar, it only becomes a building, to Catholics at least. This is why abandon Churches can be converted to other things, in Montreal there are examples of these buildings.
OP is correct here by saying that the Church is the people. It’s just that the word has two meanings, the church building and the Church of Christ.
It’s also why sometimes you hear Christians say things like “your family is also your Church”
According to canon law, a Catholic church must be desacralized (or deconsecrated) in order to be licitly used for other, though not just any, purposes[0].
Your interpretation of "people and not the building" is pretty unique to Protestantism in the Christian belief, and arguably the central tenet of Methodism. It is absent in much of the history of Christian (and most other monotheistic) beliefs.
I recommend you look at (as an example), what the Catholic Church did since around the conversion of the Romans through to Vatican II. Even when I was a kid (some decades after Vatican II), attending Catholic school and regularly attending mass, the Catholic Church building was considered an incredibly special place by the congregations.
In my school, the chapel (which held a tabernacle), was once used by some well-meaning but incredibly ill-educated pupils to hold a palm reading booth for a school fete fundraiser. When the more traditional Catholics in the faculty found out, they burst in, soaking the pupils and chapel with holy water and latin prayer (first time used in the school since Vatican II! Showed their colours that day!), claiming that to engage in the occult near a tabernacle was an incredibly offensive thing to do, because the space held a tabernacle, end of.
The whole thing about Protestantism is to remove mystery. Research the early history from Luther through the English Tudors and the King James Bible, all the way through to the Mayflower and the reason why they were fleeing Europe to the New World, and you'll see that big and plain. It doesn't mean that a sense of mystery in terms of rituals and rites held in special designated spaces died and went away though, it just means it's less present than it once was.
For many, many people (billions on Earth today), "holy spaces" remain exactly that: consecrated spaces that are in themselves holy regardless of whether a human congregation is present or not. And this is not limited to Christianity either.
As this was a Methodist Church, I suspect most people who used it would consider it "just a building", albeit one with sentimental memories (weddings, funerals, weekly worship), but sure, it's bricks and mortar and balconies and pews and a broken organ. shrug.
It's just that's actually quite an unusual viewpoint on a global scale, for most denominations.
Catholics abandon and sell church buildings all the time. Once you've removed a small handful of sacred items and done the de-consecration-ritual, it is "just a building" to them too.
There are vast numbers of repurposed churches in Catholic countries. Just walk the streets in an Italian city.
I'm not familiar with the specifics for catholics, but it is conceptually not too different from how protestants do it.
With the caveat, best repeated in every post under this article, that of course very strong sentimental feelings can be attached to a church building. You could put a religious dimension on the morality of hurting peoples feelings by destroying or changing a beautiful thing I guess. But, it is not the house itself that is holy in a holy house.
I'm eastern orthodox so not part of one of the groups you're talking about but we share a lot with catholics so maybe close enough.
The reaction you're talking about with the palm reading seems like it could have mostly been because of the presence of a loaded tabernacle? I mean I doubt they would have been pleased about this without it but lay catholics I know take the tabernacle extremely seriously.
I don't particularly, aesthetically, like to see churches used for secular purposes but if they've been properly desacralized I don't have any strong religious objections.
> "holy spaces" remain exactly that: consecrated spaces that are in themselves holy regardless of whether a human congregation is present or not
This is true but it implies a causality that is backwards I think. Spaces aren't holy because of the consecration, they're holy because of the people that come there to worship together regularly over many years. If they stop doing that the church doesn't immediately "lose its holiness" or whatever but it does change: it becomes a shrine or a relic or maybe just a building.
same -- maybe you should look into the Quakers, they're basically a denomination that is only community and sans doctrine, is my understanding. I only haven't followed this advice for bad reasons
You're kind of proving the point. The building is not the real thing, as any sense in which it is holy (which is a word that means set apart for a special purpose) can be readily undone. The church doesn't cease to exist when that happens. It moves. The same way the Tabernacle (the ancient Tabernacle) moved, which happened on a semi-regular basis. The place is less important than who is there.
It seems like this is confusing The Church with a church.
Notre Dame Cathedral is a church, but you could burn it to the ground tomorrow and it wouldn’t have hardly any impact at all on the persistence of The Church.
Such is claimed, but I suspect that this is a misleading truth. Christianity is an extremely successful religion, but if it were less popular and Notre Dame was one of only a few church buildings (even, just one of a few with that level of grandeur), then burning it to the ground would indeed have a profound impact on the persistence of The Church. For those religions with a single temple, the destruction of that building is more than merely traumatic, it is catastrophic. Christianity only avoids this by having so very many buildings, many of them as spectacular as Notre Dame.
Yup I'm gonna second this one. I grew up in Cologne and Christians here generally don't think the Cologne Cathedral [1] (which holds among other things, according to the Church the bones of the three magi) is "just a building" and if you wanted to argue to turn it into a mall next week you'd probably get a pretty strong reaction from members of the church
If you wanted to turn the cathedral of cologne into a mall you’d get a pretty strong reaction from _me_, who’s neither religious nor has ever been to Cologne!
> Generally speaking, non-religious people understand church to be a building. Whereas religious people understand that the people are the church, the building is just a building.
The word "church" itself is used to refer to the building in several languages; some of the buildings get some fancier word like "cathedral" or "dom church" or just "dom", like the Kölnerdom or Nidarosdomen. It's a type of building the same way that you expect certain things of a Rathaus or office building or detached house.
Of course, it is also used to refer to what in secular contexts would be called a club or organization, like "the church of $country". E.g. if you want Norwegian waffles abroad, Sjømannskirken (literally "The seamen's church") is very likely to have them. Norwegian churches-as-organizations run partially on coffee & waffles.
The only other group I can think of off the top of my head that get called the same as a building is parliament? While with churches it's kind of as if we used just one word to describe a football field, the football team, and that football team's supporters. Homonyms can trip people up.
So for people who aren't in the organization, but know that people associated with that kind of organization take umbrage at a lot of things that they can't easily predict, it's no wonder that churches-the-buildings have mental priority because that's what they actually experience in their daily lives: Buildings that exist in their vicinity, that often represent a sizable investment, and that they might even get invited to for some rituals like marriages and funerals. The … Jesus club is about as visible to them as a local role-playing club, or indoor sports club.
It's possible that this is generally true, but that's definitely not my perception. Growing up I remember hearing about stories like this [0] where people camped out in a church for over a decade to try to stop it from being closed. As someone who isn't religious, I still can't understand the level of attachment to the building itself, and it's hard to imagine that this would happen from people not ascribing some sort of religious significance to the building itself. That said, I know that there are some notable differences between Catholics and other Christians in terms of veneration, so maybe this perception is just due to my growing up in an area where other types of Christianity weren't as common, and elsewhere in the country where Catholics aren't as common, the generalization would hold more true.
> Whereas religious people understand that the people are the church, the building is just a building.
Many (most?) religions invest enormous amounts in those buildings, some with staggering displays of wealth. Even in many/most towns, the religious institution is the nicest building around.
Where I grew up, in the non-evangelical, very mainline American Presbyterian tradition, the church was the building, and the Church was the congregation of believers, both those who worshipped in the church and those who shared their beliefs.
1. church meaning a building
2. church meaning an organisation - e.g. "Roman Catholic Church"
3. church militant - all Christians on earth
4. church triumphant - all of redeemed humanity. If you are a universalist (someone who believes all of humanity is saved) this would be synonymous with all of humanity.
I am sure I have missed things out, and there are lots of shades of meaning and different levels with regard to organisations.
Is it the difference between a church building and a temple? The Romans would put a wall (or it could have been a ditch) around some ground. The wall was called a fanum. That which was outside of the fanum was called the profanum (pro = before) or profane. Inside the fanum was sacred or holy ground where the sanctuary was situated. We see this kind of think in Greek Temples, Egyptian Temples, the Temple of Solomon, etc. Perhaps some people view their church buildings similar to how ancients viewed their temples.
First, everyone (faithful or not) understands that "church" could mean physical structure or the body of people who attend. The word was frequently used both ways in my Southern Baptist youth, for example, and I'm familiar with similar use patterns from the Catholics I've known.
HOWEVER it IS true that some flavors of Christianity DO see the physical building as blessed, consecrated, or whatever, and somehow important in and of itself. It varies WIDELY by faith; neither position is universal at all.
My sense is that GENERALLY this distinction maps to the adherence to/belief in actual sacraments -- ie, rituals written out and led by specific clergy that lead to desirable spiritual goals.
The Roman church, for example, has a number of these that are considered important to your spiritual life. For a faithful Catholic, Communion involves actual transubstantiation, and requires the priest. You're probably not truly married unless you're married in a Catholic ceremony by a priest in a church. Confession matters. Etc.
By contrast, most mainline protestant churches don't really have any of these. Your relationship to God is between you and God; the pastor leads the church, but is not seen as someone with a hotline to the almighty.
Many or most of them DO things that look like Communion, but it's entirely symbolic; the act itself has no special spiritual power, and there is no expectation of transubstantiation. It's done maybe quarterly largely because the Gospels say Jesus said to "do this in remembrance of me."
Most protestant sects don't think a church wedding has any additional spiritual weight, and certainly don't require one. Marriage is between you, your spouse, and God. I went to a Baptist wedding on a golf course last fall where the officiant was the groom's nonclergy (but devout) uncle. That's normal.
Yes, the Word of God says the "church" is either the whole set of all believers in Jesus Christ or a local group of them. It's people who together make up His "body" while He is the "head." Example verses:
False teaching that contradicts God's Word often tries to elevate specific people or buildings while the Word elevates Christ. Over time, more religions started focusing a lot on their buildings. They identified as Christian even though their practices were getting further and further from Biblical examples. This caused much confusion.
Our church would just call it an old building that used to house a church (group of people). Hopefully, the members are still gathering to worship God, read the Word, share Christ, and love each other. Those are what's important.
I was only talking about Christians that put God's Word center. Catholicism is a different, church-centered faith that came later.
For example, in Christianity, they only venerate God and pray to God through Jesus alone. Peter and Hebrews says we are all priests who have direct access to God, coming boldly, as His adopted sons and daughters. Jesus also represents us before God with nobody else really needed.
Whereas, Catholicism taught people to venerate and pray to mere humans. They pray to Mary hoping she will represent them, too. That's idolatry in God's Word. It's also something we don't see Apostles or believers doing.
I noted below numerous such reasons that Catholicism is a different religion which Jesus and the Apostles call false teaching. That is, anything that contradicts their Gospel of justification by faith in Christ alone worshiping God alone.
Deuteronomy requires testing any person or claim that allegedly comes from God. They had to have supernatural power and never contradict God's Word. The Pope's fail that test while Apostles passed it. To be obedient, I tested it myself above.
> non-religious people understand church to be a building. Whereas religious people understand that the people are the church
"Church" is equivocal [0]. It can mean "a church" as in a building used for liturgical worship (and specifically, the sacrifice of the mass). It can mean the institution founded by Christ, a divine and universal (hence "catholic" [1]) society, in which case we tend to capitalize it in English. In this latter case, theologically, we can speak of the human and divine elements, where the human (here on earth, the so-called Ecclesia militans or "Church Militant") is afflicted by the ravages of sin, while the divine dimension remains indefectible. The totality of the Church also includes the Ecclesia poenitens ("Church Penitent", "Church Expectant", or "Church Suffering") and the Ecclesia triumphans ("Church Triumphant").
(As a footnote, people in countries with a Christian heritage sometimes commit fallacies of equivocation with respect to these two meanings. This leads to some absurd inferences. For example, proponents of secularism have sometimes called for the separation of "mosque and state" in Muslim countries in an attempt to mirror the liberal exaggeration of the Christian distinction between Church and State, but this is nonsensical. "Mosque" has only one meaning, namely, the building. There is no institutional "Mosque". Islam does not make a distinction between religious and secular authority (which has its roots in Matthew 22:21 [2]). In the Islamic worldview, there is only Islam - "submission" [3] - and the unconquered world of the infidels. Liberalism is, genealogically and as a matter of substance, a Christian heresy - something it shares with Islam - but one that is alien to the Islamic worldview. The secular/Islamic divide in the traditionally Islamic world is rather a result of Western geopolitical influence, an arrangement merely tolerated, for the time being at least, by devout Muslims.)
> to the religious, the use of the building for non-religious purposes is "shrug".
Perhaps for some Protestants, but Catholic churches are not simply meeting houses, but the successors of the Temple of Jerusalem where the perfect sacrifice of the mass is offered (the liturgy itself has the structure of the liturgy used in the Temple). It is most certainly not a "shrug".
> Whereas to the non-religious the idea of turning a church building into something else is some kind of desecration.
I don't understand. To non-religious people who do not recognize a religion's truth claims, it appears that there is nothing to desecrate. Catholics/Orthodox most certainly would consider the illicit use of a church as desecration (example: the man who recently climbed onto the main altar in St. Peter's Basilica).
I live in Detroit and don't understand why everyone wants to work remove AND live in the most expensive places in the world. To me working remote means I can live anywhere I want. Why not live where you get a lot more for your money?
> Why not live where you get a lot more for your money?
People live in expensive places not because they are required to, but because they find these places appealing. There are much more arts, culture, food, smart people, better schools, etc. Look at the prices people are willing to pay to live in NYC, parts of the Bay Area, etc. That is supply and demand.
They are getting a lot more (of what they want) for their money. Others live in Aspen for the same reason - though they want different things. I hope you are fortunate enough to want things that aren't in quite so high demand.
If all the smart people in San Francisco who are there to be around other smart people moved to Columbus, Ohio, they could save a ton on housing costs.
That’s the stated reason, but it doesn’t factor in social trends and just general imitative behavior. In my experience the vast majority of people want to live in popular cities because other people want to live there, not because they’ve done a rational analysis of the differences in food, culture, etc.
“Hacking” this by figuring out exactly what you want and finding it in a less in-demand place is a great move if you work remotely.
> In my experience the vast majority of people want to live in popular cities because other people want to live there, not because they’ve done a rational analysis of the differences in food, culture, etc.
Isn't that the "culture" of the city? People want to live there because they want to be near the other cool people who live there. Culture means much more than if it has an art gallery.
I wouldn’t define culture as “I want to live in a place because other people want to live in a place.”
Sure, absolutely larger cities have more cultural events going on, but in my experience most people aren’t analyzing the different options and aren’t utilizing all of those amenities when they actually live there.
New York is a classic example. A lot of people say they move there to be closer to museums, but most only end up visiting them once or twice a year, at most. This is because they like the idea, the perception, of being a person that lives in a city with the MET and MoMa, etc.
I really like NYC, for reference, so I’m not putting down the city or other large cities. But there is also a ton of hype and imitative behavior that makes people focus exclusively on the coastal cities. There are plenty of cities across America which have hip arts districts, coffee shops, great museums, nice architecture, etc. etc. but they tend to be glossed over.
> There are plenty of cities across America which have hip arts districts, coffee shops, great museums, nice architecture, etc. etc. but they tend to be glossed over.
There are lots of people in smaller cities who say, 'we have ____ just like NY!' But it's not just like NY. There's a big difference between the innovation, skill, production, investment, etc. in those things. If you want world-class music, where will you live? Even if you just want regular opera, there are only a few US cities to live in.
> there is also a ton of hype and imitative behavior that makes people focus exclusively on the coastal cities
The same people also say NY is crazy, too liberal (i.e., too socially innovative), things are too odd and strange there. Where the 'crazy', innovative ideas - so far out that they are strange to most people - are accepted and encouraged and loved are in cities like NY. It's not the same.
At the end of the day, it's tough to live in a place like SF or NYC. A lot of people get weeded out. In my experience with living in SF, the people I know who continue to live there do so because they genuinely love it and wouldn't want to be anywhere else.
Most people aren't going to continue to put up with the costs and challenges of big city life if they actually don't care all that much and could be just as happy in whatever places you're suggesting.
Well, you’re wrong. Culture is by definition social behavior first, and then institutions arise out of that.
Beyond that key point, you’re making an error of assuming there is one fungible “culture experience” that can be had anywhere there’s a gallery and a coffee shop on the same street.
The gap between the cultural opportunities in NYC and a second tier US city is as vast as the difference between cutting edge research at Alphabet and a small web shop putting together wordpress sites for the local businesses.
The benefit of being in the city is not that you visit the MoMa every weekend - the rotating exhibits aren’t going to align with my interests that frequently. It’s that enough people around you are operating on a level where they could conceivably care about such things.
Well we have evidence - 'the stated reason' - on one hand, and none on the other. As someone who likes those sorts of things, living in places like that is completely worthwhile if affordable.
> “Hacking” this by figuring out exactly what you want and finding it in a less in-demand place is a great move if you work remotely.
I referenced that in my GP comment - absolutely, don't imitate others, find what you want!
That's easier in places like NY and SF, where people are receptive to that and they don't enforce conformity or think you are too outside the pale with some wild idea or behavior. You're startup idea might not get much support in much of the world.
I've worked remotely for years and currently live in Hong Kong (a city where rent is close to Manhattan prices). Why do I live there? Because I appreciate the restaurants available, the variety of food, the regular theater performances from all over the world, the easy access to hiking trails and beaches while living in a densely populated city, access to museums and activities for my kid.
I was raised in a tiny village, I hate the countryside, it's so utterly boring, I want a short commute to all the activities the city offers and I love public transport.
First time I went to HK in the 90s, I remember being insanely impressed that I could go down the lift in our hotel and step out into an underground department store and food court full of stalls. And then from there, a tiny walk to countless other things. Not going to appeal to everyone but I can absolutely see why it appeals to some.
My city affords me, with a 20 minute drive, access to Michelin star quality restaurants, events that other people travel across the planet to attend, constant awesome concerts with the biggest stars, and hundreds (thousands?) of mom-and-pops. I friggin love it here, and it’s only like 40 minutes to some of the most beautiful natural landscapes I could hope for.
I COULD live in $cheaperCity, but then I’m paying tons of money to go somewhere I actually want to be, not to mention needing to plan a whole trip for many of these things, which gets way harder when you’re one of millions trying to get to the city for that event.
Because corporations literally forbid people working for them and living in some cheap places. My corporation forbids this, I must live withing commute distance of any of our offices, despite working full remote for years. They also made a weak try to shove us back in the office in 2023, but that was universally ignored and not enforced thankfully.
Location, location, location. Some parts of the country are nicer than others. Most people don't consider rural areas where the land is flat and mostly cornfields (with a possibility of tornadoes) to be a nice place to live. I live about an hour from the ocean and an hour from year round skiing in the mountains. Lots of hills and forests. I had to pay $250,000 for a 4,000 sq foot home on a wooded acre when I bought it three years ago, but I don't mind spendin that much when I am close into the city and so close to nature.
As a remote tech worker who moved from the Bay to a (much) cheaper place - I agree that the expensive places are expensive for a reason - but if one can articulate what specifically they're looking for, it's almost always possible to find it in a significantly cheaper cost-of-living area.
It's Christianity by a wide margin (about 2/3rds of the population). I'm not sure where you get the idea there are more masonic lodges than churches. Just a quick check for my state, Massachusetts, shows about 300 masonic lodges and about 4000 churches.
One Masonic Lodge vs 18 churches. Repeat that experiment with a bunch of random cities and you'll find that outside of the very high population cities (NYC, Chicago, Atlanta, etc.) there are rarely more than one or two lodges, if they even have one at all.
Pew polls show about 5% or slightly less identify as atheists. About 30% (including atheists) are non-religious. About 60% identify as Christian. Then a few other groups that are 1-2%: Jewish, Mormon, Buddhist, Muslim.
Your statement of "mostly" is an extreme (10x) overstatement.
I take umbrage at another aspect of your statement: "culturally Christian atheists". I've heard this pointed specifically at me by people saying things like, "You are Christian, you just don't know it." That say that because I tend to be sensitive/kind/helpful/low ego. Yes, good Christians should be those things, but that doesn't mean that Christianity owns those traits or that those traits didn't exist and weren't valued before Christianity came along.
I don’t disagree! but among Americans who do not go to church, most of them have parents or grandparents or great-grandparents who attended Christian church regularly, and some of that culture is still prevalent in subtle things like “protestant work ethic”
If you asked the typical American protestant (who does NOT go to church every week BTW) if they really believe in the whole god and heaven and hell thing, a lot of 'em are gonna hem and haw. It's closer to a social club than an old school religion.
Evangelical Protestants, Catholics, and mainline Protestants make up 60% of the US population. Atheism isn't that common, maybe 5-10% of the population depending on definition.
> I noticed that there you have more masonic temples than churches in every city.
... Eh?
The US probably has more churches, as in physical buildings, per capita than anywhere else in the world.
Freemasonry isn't a religion, though it has vague religious trappings, but in any case it's fairly absurd to suggest that there are more masonic buildings than churches in the US.
Wait, don't I recognize that name? Wait a second... This is THE John Scalzi? When I was a kid I pulled a paperback off of my dad's bookshelf, Old Man's War. Great, take your brain out trashy sci fi, and I mean that in the most positive way possible, it left a big impression on me. Incredible writer, cool that he is still around and has a blog.
He's not only still around, he still writes awesome books.
But yeah, I too was reading without noticing, until I came to the sentence "None of the Scalzis are particularly religious", and thought "wait, Scalzi like John Scalzi? It's not... It is?!"
Another old man’s war series book is going to be released this year
He is also one of the authors that (almost) all his eBooks sold on Google Play are without DRM.
>take your brain out trashy sci fi, and I mean that in the most positive way possible
that's the guy. he's got a new book coming out this month, and is a fun follow on social media too (now on bluesky). i feel like he would be flattered by your description.
Seconded - https://bsky.app/profile/scalzi.com is one of the more interesting feeds on the site.
> When I was a kid [...] Old Man's War
Well, THAT just made me feel like an old man.
Same -- I still think of Scalzi as a new(ish) SF writer since he started publishing after I was an adult SF reader. Woof, time marches on!
Oh wow, i never would have made the connection. 'Lock In' was one of my favorite books growing up.
Yes, that's the guy and he has written a lot of good sci-fi since then. He's pretty active on Mastodon too.
Yep, MetaFilter’s own jscalzi
You're in for a treat if you haven't read him since OMW. He's one of the more prolific "popular SF" writers around, has won a ton of awards, and usually has a book out about every year or so.
The Collapsing Empire series is particularly good.
Though the Deus Ex Machina is indeed a Deus Ex Machina, even when signposted.
They use the sign outside for the most hilarious messages. On Google Maps you can see two versions, "IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A SIGN HERE IT IS", and "SORRY KIDS SCHOOL TIME AGAIN".
In case you're wondering, here it is: https://maps.app.goo.gl/nbWXb78AHC5oUjTw6
It's really a beautiful building, so glad they kept the stained glass. Great that they were able to repurpose this and didn't tear it down!
If you’re lucky enough to do something like this I can’t recommend it enough. I bought a second house in my neighborhood instead of renting an office and it made work a hell of a lot more fun. Felt healthier too, because I could open windows or take walks.
$75k. Wow. You'd be lucky to buy a 1 bedroom crack den on the worst estate in the UK for that.
Given the Methodist's reputation for being dour, I'm surprised how nice it looks inside.
In the US, Methodist is a relatively middle-of-the-road denomination, not nearly as dreary as I've seen UK Methodists described.
From the extensive renovations listed, I’m guessing you can add another $200k onto that price point.
> Not “Church of the Scalzi,” which is actually the name of a church in Venice, Italy.
Oh right, "scalzi" means 'barefoot' (mpl) in Italian!
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scalzo#Italian
I thought I wanted a house with land, woods, garden with bunch of carrots and little sweet peas, but now I want a church to maintain.
Hmm, a six-necked guitar called the Beast on the Altar. That's a little on the nose.
Related: beautiful reuse of a former church in Copenhagen. They host events during the day and communal dinners at night. https://absaloncph.dk/en/
Please don’t terrify your contractors. They fix your place, and you want them on your side doing a good job.
I take "terrify" to mean "they know they will be supervised and their wkrk checked".
I've "terrified" contractors when I've called them on their BS. I once had a contractor tell me it was okay to notch 50% into a load bearing floor joist. I quickly pulled up the building code and his face went pale...
Like this? https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ff...
> and despite the actions of certain science fiction authors in the past offering precedent, I have no desire to start a cult
> I want to recondition the old pastor’s study, get the organ functional again, and we want to make the sanctuary level more easily accessible via ramps and such
I mean, he _claims_ not to want to start a cult, but I feel like, if starting a cult, these are exactly the sort of facilities one would be recommissioning. Especially the organ.
Granted, for a moment I thought this was Charles Stross (the other Very Online sci-fi author), which would be _far_ more worrying, considering.
I think the frequency of organ-centered cults is lower than you might imagine.
In the end, I suspect most cults want all your organs.
Or to do something to you with their organs...
Is this an organ music joke?
(Most cults probably don't have pipe organs, but I feel like it is unquestionably a _plus_ for your cult if you happen to have access to one.)
He also created the Githzerai/Githyanki, so other ways of creating cults seem easier.
He also mentioned using the basement for "gatherings" and that immediately set off my cult-alarm bells!
Pretty jealous to be honest, the building itself looks beautiful.
https://thechurchstudio.com/about/
Now, where's the sympathy for the effective altruists who bought a castle for the same financial reasons? They were widely mocked for their apparent exuberance.
Effective altruism is a cult and it deserves to be mocked.
> What denomination used to be there?
Oh, baskets of mostly dollar coins, quarters, some dimes, ...
1919. Pfft! My cousin has bought and is converting a church where the oldest bits are 12th century (although the tower is 17th century, and it was extensively redone in the 1830s). At the rate he works, he's probably going to be working on it for the rest of his life.
Do any talking cats live or have their offices there?
There are rumors that the church is haunted, but John claims no ghosts have made their presence known.
The idyllic life of small town America?
Disappointing he says he is not using it to start a cult. I'd start a cult. Church building first, cult second.
If you wanted to start a cult, would you say you wanted to start a cult?
"I just want to share my learnings with the good people of Ohio..."
If you're starting a cult, always build instead of buy!
Hmmm, if you're starting a cult as a way to tap into tax exemptions, I suspect your accountants and lawyers would have long heated arguments about exactly how to best structure the church building ownership or lease/rental. Is your cult's meeting place a capex or an opex?
If you want to start a cult to get out of taxes, forget the church - you need a boat.
I mean the most notorious example very much had both.
Consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Mansion. My great great grandfather lived there till he jumped to his death from Brown's Hotel in London. See Richard Cory.
Been done. It's called scientology.
Nah I think the Lean method would be to start the cult first, prove product-market fit, then get the church once you have around 10 members
but you get the money before you even have any idea of your actual tenants and beliefs. slide deck -> money -> cult -> bodies -> church
I don't want for much and don't need much more money than I currently have, I used to say before reading this
The church cost only $75,000; because it is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford,_Ohio
If you work remotely, this seems a good example of why you might consider moving away from a major city.
While he doesn't explicitly say it, I'm going to bet that the renovation, and likely even just the essential parts (roof, rewiring etc) of the renovation cost considerably more than that.
Yeah, the renovations they describe are easily over $100,000—probably multiples of that.
(I live in Michigan, so I'm assuming project costs would be similar to where I am)
Yeah, but still. On the coasts that would be a $1.5M+ property.
Only in the most desirable of desirable areas. I live on the east coast (almost literally, only a few blocks from the ocean) and a similar church sold last year in the town next door for just over $300,000.
I live in Bangkok. So I'm over here searching for abandoned Buddhist temples lol
If you wanted to actually use it day to day though, it would cost so much more. Just the temperature control for such area would be either super expensive or require a complete redesign of the space to split it into lower floors.
It would, but that's partly a matter of size, and a large house will cost a lot to heat or cool as well. I'm in the UK (cool climate), and there are a lot of smaller chapels which have been converted to use as houses quite successfully.
So its about 45 minutes (by car) from a city of about 130,000 people.
That's hardly the middle of nowhere.
For a lot of people, "45 minutes by car to get to a city of any real size" is very much in the middle of nowhere.
Branford is within 15 minutes of Piqua and Greensville which are both mid-sized towns that have everything you need for everyday life, and a lot of what you'd want. To me that is much more relevant than how far it is to a large city, which you would be visiting much less frequently. 15 minutes is a normal commuting time within a city, so not really the middle of nowhere.
Those people very badly need some perspective, then. That is not remotely the middle of nowhere.
It just depends on your perspective.
Honestly, Americans are probably more tolerant and accepting of long distances compared to most peer countries. 45 minutes of driving to hit some kind of city is very far most of the time in Japan or most of Europe, where the population density is higher than the states.
Growing up in the UK, 45 minutes was about the ‘if we’re going there in the evening we’re going to need to get a hotel’ boundary. Now I live in the US it’s a short drive.
It’s amazing how perspective changes. If you haven’t experienced it I suspect it’s impossible to understand, because this feels crazy to write. It’s true though.
that again depends on where you are in Europe... in most of Germany you're right. large parts of Norway Sweden Finland? not so much...
It is probably true that in a majority of those land areas (Finland, Sweden, Norway) you are more than 45 minutes of driving from the next proper city.
However, the proportion of people who live like that is not very high. People mostly live where other people live.
and yet plenty of people have a commute _within_ the city that is longer than that
Oh for sure, but they're still 'somewhere' while commuting.
I would so much prefer an hour on a rural highway over an hour stuck in city traffic!
All a matter of perspective, I suppose. I'd call that the middle of nowhere, but I've always lived either in a medium-sized (>1 million people) city or its suburbs.
In particular it doesn't seem to have public transport at _all_, at least per Google Maps; I'd consider anywhere where your only option to get to a city was to drive to be serious middle of nowhere, though I gather that this is a more common condition in the US.
I lived in a place that was a 30 min drive from a similar sized place (Cambridge, UK). It totally felt like the middle of nowhere. It's not so much about the numbers but about the feeling of a place:
* No transport links means total dependence on car,
* No natural features of any note, in particular no rivers or hills,
* Unknown to people outside of the very small population that lives there,
* Hard to convince people to come and visit you and when they do they're disappointed.
I've noticed something, and I don't know if it's too much of a generalization but I see it a fair bit, so maybe it's generally true.
Generally speaking, non-religious people understand church to be a building. Whereas religious people understand that the people are the church, the building is just a building.
Now granted some of them are really nice buildings, and some are really old, and you can be both religious and really like the building, but the two concepts are still separate.
In other words, to the religious, the use of the building for non-religious purposes is "shrug".
Whereas to the non-religious the idea of turning a church building into something else is some kind of desecration. (Obviously this isn't the case for this article, but I noted the first question as him getting that response, and also the immediate rebuttal that he's starting a cult.)
Anyway, I thought it an interesting, if tangentially observation. And as with all generalizations there will be lots of exceptions.
> In other words, to the religious, the use of the building for non-religious purposes is "shrug".
This isn’t accurate except for perhaps certain parts of Protestantism. To Catholics, Orthodox, probably portions of the Church of England etc, ie a majority of Christianity church buildings are holy and specially blessed. They hold the Eucharist in the Tabernacle which these Churches believe is the body and blood of Jesus under the guise of bread which is the most holy thing for them. In order for these buildings to be used for any other purpose all the holy things would need to be removed and the building specifically deconsecrated.
The Church building is only considered Holy when Christ is considered present for Eucharist. Should it be removed along with the Altar, it only becomes a building, to Catholics at least. This is why abandon Churches can be converted to other things, in Montreal there are examples of these buildings.
OP is correct here by saying that the Church is the people. It’s just that the word has two meanings, the church building and the Church of Christ.
It’s also why sometimes you hear Christians say things like “your family is also your Church”
According to canon law, a Catholic church must be desacralized (or deconsecrated) in order to be licitly used for other, though not just any, purposes[0].
[0] https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/when-a-church-is-de...
In the NT and early history of the [Catholic] church it was explicitly the people and not the building.
Your interpretation of "people and not the building" is pretty unique to Protestantism in the Christian belief, and arguably the central tenet of Methodism. It is absent in much of the history of Christian (and most other monotheistic) beliefs.
I recommend you look at (as an example), what the Catholic Church did since around the conversion of the Romans through to Vatican II. Even when I was a kid (some decades after Vatican II), attending Catholic school and regularly attending mass, the Catholic Church building was considered an incredibly special place by the congregations.
In my school, the chapel (which held a tabernacle), was once used by some well-meaning but incredibly ill-educated pupils to hold a palm reading booth for a school fete fundraiser. When the more traditional Catholics in the faculty found out, they burst in, soaking the pupils and chapel with holy water and latin prayer (first time used in the school since Vatican II! Showed their colours that day!), claiming that to engage in the occult near a tabernacle was an incredibly offensive thing to do, because the space held a tabernacle, end of.
The whole thing about Protestantism is to remove mystery. Research the early history from Luther through the English Tudors and the King James Bible, all the way through to the Mayflower and the reason why they were fleeing Europe to the New World, and you'll see that big and plain. It doesn't mean that a sense of mystery in terms of rituals and rites held in special designated spaces died and went away though, it just means it's less present than it once was.
For many, many people (billions on Earth today), "holy spaces" remain exactly that: consecrated spaces that are in themselves holy regardless of whether a human congregation is present or not. And this is not limited to Christianity either.
As this was a Methodist Church, I suspect most people who used it would consider it "just a building", albeit one with sentimental memories (weddings, funerals, weekly worship), but sure, it's bricks and mortar and balconies and pews and a broken organ. shrug.
It's just that's actually quite an unusual viewpoint on a global scale, for most denominations.
Catholics abandon and sell church buildings all the time. Once you've removed a small handful of sacred items and done the de-consecration-ritual, it is "just a building" to them too.
There are vast numbers of repurposed churches in Catholic countries. Just walk the streets in an Italian city.
I'm not familiar with the specifics for catholics, but it is conceptually not too different from how protestants do it.
With the caveat, best repeated in every post under this article, that of course very strong sentimental feelings can be attached to a church building. You could put a religious dimension on the morality of hurting peoples feelings by destroying or changing a beautiful thing I guess. But, it is not the house itself that is holy in a holy house.
I'm eastern orthodox so not part of one of the groups you're talking about but we share a lot with catholics so maybe close enough.
The reaction you're talking about with the palm reading seems like it could have mostly been because of the presence of a loaded tabernacle? I mean I doubt they would have been pleased about this without it but lay catholics I know take the tabernacle extremely seriously.
I don't particularly, aesthetically, like to see churches used for secular purposes but if they've been properly desacralized I don't have any strong religious objections.
> "holy spaces" remain exactly that: consecrated spaces that are in themselves holy regardless of whether a human congregation is present or not
This is true but it implies a causality that is backwards I think. Spaces aren't holy because of the consecration, they're holy because of the people that come there to worship together regularly over many years. If they stop doing that the church doesn't immediately "lose its holiness" or whatever but it does change: it becomes a shrine or a relic or maybe just a building.
Perhaps, but that was 2000 years ago and not necessarily identical to how people feel/believe today.
Growing up Methodist, we learned it via church camp singalong:
A church is not a building
A church is not a steeple
A church is not a resting place
A church is a people
I am the church
You are the church
We are the church together
All who follow Jesus
All around the world
Yes were the church to-clap!-gether.
I don’t believe in any of it anymore, but it’s still a nice sentiment - the only thing I really miss about Christianity is the community.
same -- maybe you should look into the Quakers, they're basically a denomination that is only community and sans doctrine, is my understanding. I only haven't followed this advice for bad reasons
You're kind of proving the point. The building is not the real thing, as any sense in which it is holy (which is a word that means set apart for a special purpose) can be readily undone. The church doesn't cease to exist when that happens. It moves. The same way the Tabernacle (the ancient Tabernacle) moved, which happened on a semi-regular basis. The place is less important than who is there.
Surely if the church was just the people such a ritual of consecration would have fallen by the wayside a long time ago.
Anyway, there are in fact many christians who view churches as sacred in themselves. Good luck painting christianity with any such a wide brush.
The inclusion of the word “just” makes this comment not so relevant to the discussion. Nobody is claiming that.
I'm afraid i'm missing the point of the entire conversation, then. Nobody was claiming church was just a building to begin with either.
It seems like this is confusing The Church with a church.
Notre Dame Cathedral is a church, but you could burn it to the ground tomorrow and it wouldn’t have hardly any impact at all on the persistence of The Church.
Such is claimed, but I suspect that this is a misleading truth. Christianity is an extremely successful religion, but if it were less popular and Notre Dame was one of only a few church buildings (even, just one of a few with that level of grandeur), then burning it to the ground would indeed have a profound impact on the persistence of The Church. For those religions with a single temple, the destruction of that building is more than merely traumatic, it is catastrophic. Christianity only avoids this by having so very many buildings, many of them as spectacular as Notre Dame.
Yup I'm gonna second this one. I grew up in Cologne and Christians here generally don't think the Cologne Cathedral [1] (which holds among other things, according to the Church the bones of the three magi) is "just a building" and if you wanted to argue to turn it into a mall next week you'd probably get a pretty strong reaction from members of the church
[1] https://www.wandererscompass.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/...
If you wanted to turn the cathedral of cologne into a mall you’d get a pretty strong reaction from _me_, who’s neither religious nor has ever been to Cologne!
>if you wanted to argue to turn it into a mall next week you'd probably get a pretty strong reaction from members of the church
Even us atheists should hope that the building would get a little more love and respect than that.
sure but a church building that hasn’t been used in years surely was already deconsecrated
> Generally speaking, non-religious people understand church to be a building. Whereas religious people understand that the people are the church, the building is just a building.
The word "church" itself is used to refer to the building in several languages; some of the buildings get some fancier word like "cathedral" or "dom church" or just "dom", like the Kölnerdom or Nidarosdomen. It's a type of building the same way that you expect certain things of a Rathaus or office building or detached house.
Of course, it is also used to refer to what in secular contexts would be called a club or organization, like "the church of $country". E.g. if you want Norwegian waffles abroad, Sjømannskirken (literally "The seamen's church") is very likely to have them. Norwegian churches-as-organizations run partially on coffee & waffles.
The only other group I can think of off the top of my head that get called the same as a building is parliament? While with churches it's kind of as if we used just one word to describe a football field, the football team, and that football team's supporters. Homonyms can trip people up.
So for people who aren't in the organization, but know that people associated with that kind of organization take umbrage at a lot of things that they can't easily predict, it's no wonder that churches-the-buildings have mental priority because that's what they actually experience in their daily lives: Buildings that exist in their vicinity, that often represent a sizable investment, and that they might even get invited to for some rituals like marriages and funerals. The … Jesus club is about as visible to them as a local role-playing club, or indoor sports club.
> The word "church" itself is used to refer to the building in several languages
Including English, for that matter.
It's possible that this is generally true, but that's definitely not my perception. Growing up I remember hearing about stories like this [0] where people camped out in a church for over a decade to try to stop it from being closed. As someone who isn't religious, I still can't understand the level of attachment to the building itself, and it's hard to imagine that this would happen from people not ascribing some sort of religious significance to the building itself. That said, I know that there are some notable differences between Catholics and other Christians in terms of veneration, so maybe this perception is just due to my growing up in an area where other types of Christianity weren't as common, and elsewhere in the country where Catholics aren't as common, the generalization would hold more true.
[0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/massachusetts-church-protest-11...
I wonder if it is similar to people who camp out in trees to keep them from being cut down. Maybe it is the same sort of veneration in both cases?
“No, stop, this important.”
> Whereas religious people understand that the people are the church, the building is just a building.
Many (most?) religions invest enormous amounts in those buildings, some with staggering displays of wealth. Even in many/most towns, the religious institution is the nicest building around.
Where I grew up, in the non-evangelical, very mainline American Presbyterian tradition, the church was the building, and the Church was the congregation of believers, both those who worshipped in the church and those who shared their beliefs.
There are many meanings. Off the top of my head:
1. church meaning a building 2. church meaning an organisation - e.g. "Roman Catholic Church" 3. church militant - all Christians on earth 4. church triumphant - all of redeemed humanity. If you are a universalist (someone who believes all of humanity is saved) this would be synonymous with all of humanity.
I am sure I have missed things out, and there are lots of shades of meaning and different levels with regard to organisations.
It's just two different words, I feel like most people recognize both.
Is it the difference between a church building and a temple? The Romans would put a wall (or it could have been a ditch) around some ground. The wall was called a fanum. That which was outside of the fanum was called the profanum (pro = before) or profane. Inside the fanum was sacred or holy ground where the sanctuary was situated. We see this kind of think in Greek Temples, Egyptian Temples, the Temple of Solomon, etc. Perhaps some people view their church buildings similar to how ancients viewed their temples.
> In other words, to the religious, the use of the building for non-religious purposes is "shrug".
Try that in a mosque please.
Also, a couple of years ago a French (Benjamin Ledig) youtuber/tiktoker/whatever was fined for filming himself dancing in a parisian catholic church.
As you said:
> And as with all generalizations there will be lots of exceptions.
You're a bit off here.
First, everyone (faithful or not) understands that "church" could mean physical structure or the body of people who attend. The word was frequently used both ways in my Southern Baptist youth, for example, and I'm familiar with similar use patterns from the Catholics I've known.
HOWEVER it IS true that some flavors of Christianity DO see the physical building as blessed, consecrated, or whatever, and somehow important in and of itself. It varies WIDELY by faith; neither position is universal at all.
My sense is that GENERALLY this distinction maps to the adherence to/belief in actual sacraments -- ie, rituals written out and led by specific clergy that lead to desirable spiritual goals.
The Roman church, for example, has a number of these that are considered important to your spiritual life. For a faithful Catholic, Communion involves actual transubstantiation, and requires the priest. You're probably not truly married unless you're married in a Catholic ceremony by a priest in a church. Confession matters. Etc.
By contrast, most mainline protestant churches don't really have any of these. Your relationship to God is between you and God; the pastor leads the church, but is not seen as someone with a hotline to the almighty.
Many or most of them DO things that look like Communion, but it's entirely symbolic; the act itself has no special spiritual power, and there is no expectation of transubstantiation. It's done maybe quarterly largely because the Gospels say Jesus said to "do this in remembrance of me."
Most protestant sects don't think a church wedding has any additional spiritual weight, and certainly don't require one. Marriage is between you, your spouse, and God. I went to a Baptist wedding on a golf course last fall where the officiant was the groom's nonclergy (but devout) uncle. That's normal.
Yes, the Word of God says the "church" is either the whole set of all believers in Jesus Christ or a local group of them. It's people who together make up His "body" while He is the "head." Example verses:
https://www.gotquestions.org/what-is-the-church.html
False teaching that contradicts God's Word often tries to elevate specific people or buildings while the Word elevates Christ. Over time, more religions started focusing a lot on their buildings. They identified as Christian even though their practices were getting further and further from Biblical examples. This caused much confusion.
Our church would just call it an old building that used to house a church (group of people). Hopefully, the members are still gathering to worship God, read the Word, share Christ, and love each other. Those are what's important.
This depends greatly on the denomination. Pious Catholics care greatly about their church buildings.
I was only talking about Christians that put God's Word center. Catholicism is a different, church-centered faith that came later.
For example, in Christianity, they only venerate God and pray to God through Jesus alone. Peter and Hebrews says we are all priests who have direct access to God, coming boldly, as His adopted sons and daughters. Jesus also represents us before God with nobody else really needed.
Whereas, Catholicism taught people to venerate and pray to mere humans. They pray to Mary hoping she will represent them, too. That's idolatry in God's Word. It's also something we don't see Apostles or believers doing.
I noted below numerous such reasons that Catholicism is a different religion which Jesus and the Apostles call false teaching. That is, anything that contradicts their Gospel of justification by faith in Christ alone worshiping God alone.
https://www.gethisword.com/catholic
Deuteronomy requires testing any person or claim that allegedly comes from God. They had to have supernatural power and never contradict God's Word. The Pope's fail that test while Apostles passed it. To be obedient, I tested it myself above.
> non-religious people understand church to be a building. Whereas religious people understand that the people are the church
"Church" is equivocal [0]. It can mean "a church" as in a building used for liturgical worship (and specifically, the sacrifice of the mass). It can mean the institution founded by Christ, a divine and universal (hence "catholic" [1]) society, in which case we tend to capitalize it in English. In this latter case, theologically, we can speak of the human and divine elements, where the human (here on earth, the so-called Ecclesia militans or "Church Militant") is afflicted by the ravages of sin, while the divine dimension remains indefectible. The totality of the Church also includes the Ecclesia poenitens ("Church Penitent", "Church Expectant", or "Church Suffering") and the Ecclesia triumphans ("Church Triumphant").
(As a footnote, people in countries with a Christian heritage sometimes commit fallacies of equivocation with respect to these two meanings. This leads to some absurd inferences. For example, proponents of secularism have sometimes called for the separation of "mosque and state" in Muslim countries in an attempt to mirror the liberal exaggeration of the Christian distinction between Church and State, but this is nonsensical. "Mosque" has only one meaning, namely, the building. There is no institutional "Mosque". Islam does not make a distinction between religious and secular authority (which has its roots in Matthew 22:21 [2]). In the Islamic worldview, there is only Islam - "submission" [3] - and the unconquered world of the infidels. Liberalism is, genealogically and as a matter of substance, a Christian heresy - something it shares with Islam - but one that is alien to the Islamic worldview. The secular/Islamic divide in the traditionally Islamic world is rather a result of Western geopolitical influence, an arrangement merely tolerated, for the time being at least, by devout Muslims.)
> to the religious, the use of the building for non-religious purposes is "shrug".
Perhaps for some Protestants, but Catholic churches are not simply meeting houses, but the successors of the Temple of Jerusalem where the perfect sacrifice of the mass is offered (the liturgy itself has the structure of the liturgy used in the Temple). It is most certainly not a "shrug".
> Whereas to the non-religious the idea of turning a church building into something else is some kind of desecration.
I don't understand. To non-religious people who do not recognize a religion's truth claims, it appears that there is nothing to desecrate. Catholics/Orthodox most certainly would consider the illicit use of a church as desecration (example: the man who recently climbed onto the main altar in St. Peter's Basilica).
[0] https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm
[1] https://www.etymonline.com/word/catholic
[2] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022%3A...
[3] https://www.etymonline.com/word/Islam
> a company to develop creative projects that were not my novels
This may be related to Netflix movie/series adaptation of "Old Man's War" ?
https://reactormag.com/netflixs-adaptation-of-john-scalzis-o...
I live in Detroit and don't understand why everyone wants to work remove AND live in the most expensive places in the world. To me working remote means I can live anywhere I want. Why not live where you get a lot more for your money?
> Why not live where you get a lot more for your money?
People live in expensive places not because they are required to, but because they find these places appealing. There are much more arts, culture, food, smart people, better schools, etc. Look at the prices people are willing to pay to live in NYC, parts of the Bay Area, etc. That is supply and demand.
They are getting a lot more (of what they want) for their money. Others live in Aspen for the same reason - though they want different things. I hope you are fortunate enough to want things that aren't in quite so high demand.
If all the smart people in San Francisco who are there to be around other smart people moved to Columbus, Ohio, they could save a ton on housing costs.
But all the people moving there would drive up housing costs.
Either you are joking, or some people in SF are now even less likely to move to Columbus. :)
Fun fact: last I checked on Numbeo, Columbus Ohio is more expensive to live in than Tokyo.
Of course, the weak yen probably has something to do with that, and also the relatively smaller home sizes in Japan, but still, kinda crazy.
Japan is kind of a special case, as the country in general is depopulating.
Tokyo isn't; and that's not why living here is (relatively) cheap.
That’s the stated reason, but it doesn’t factor in social trends and just general imitative behavior. In my experience the vast majority of people want to live in popular cities because other people want to live there, not because they’ve done a rational analysis of the differences in food, culture, etc.
“Hacking” this by figuring out exactly what you want and finding it in a less in-demand place is a great move if you work remotely.
> In my experience the vast majority of people want to live in popular cities because other people want to live there, not because they’ve done a rational analysis of the differences in food, culture, etc.
Isn't that the "culture" of the city? People want to live there because they want to be near the other cool people who live there. Culture means much more than if it has an art gallery.
I wouldn’t define culture as “I want to live in a place because other people want to live in a place.”
Sure, absolutely larger cities have more cultural events going on, but in my experience most people aren’t analyzing the different options and aren’t utilizing all of those amenities when they actually live there.
New York is a classic example. A lot of people say they move there to be closer to museums, but most only end up visiting them once or twice a year, at most. This is because they like the idea, the perception, of being a person that lives in a city with the MET and MoMa, etc.
I really like NYC, for reference, so I’m not putting down the city or other large cities. But there is also a ton of hype and imitative behavior that makes people focus exclusively on the coastal cities. There are plenty of cities across America which have hip arts districts, coffee shops, great museums, nice architecture, etc. etc. but they tend to be glossed over.
> There are plenty of cities across America which have hip arts districts, coffee shops, great museums, nice architecture, etc. etc. but they tend to be glossed over.
There are lots of people in smaller cities who say, 'we have ____ just like NY!' But it's not just like NY. There's a big difference between the innovation, skill, production, investment, etc. in those things. If you want world-class music, where will you live? Even if you just want regular opera, there are only a few US cities to live in.
> there is also a ton of hype and imitative behavior that makes people focus exclusively on the coastal cities
The same people also say NY is crazy, too liberal (i.e., too socially innovative), things are too odd and strange there. Where the 'crazy', innovative ideas - so far out that they are strange to most people - are accepted and encouraged and loved are in cities like NY. It's not the same.
At the end of the day, it's tough to live in a place like SF or NYC. A lot of people get weeded out. In my experience with living in SF, the people I know who continue to live there do so because they genuinely love it and wouldn't want to be anywhere else.
Most people aren't going to continue to put up with the costs and challenges of big city life if they actually don't care all that much and could be just as happy in whatever places you're suggesting.
Well, you’re wrong. Culture is by definition social behavior first, and then institutions arise out of that.
Beyond that key point, you’re making an error of assuming there is one fungible “culture experience” that can be had anywhere there’s a gallery and a coffee shop on the same street.
The gap between the cultural opportunities in NYC and a second tier US city is as vast as the difference between cutting edge research at Alphabet and a small web shop putting together wordpress sites for the local businesses.
The benefit of being in the city is not that you visit the MoMa every weekend - the rotating exhibits aren’t going to align with my interests that frequently. It’s that enough people around you are operating on a level where they could conceivably care about such things.
I dunno, I've looked at cheap places and generally it seems like they're "cheap for a reason" to me.
Not that they're always terrible or anything, but there's often certain things missing that I'd rather have around. But maybe someday.
Well we have evidence - 'the stated reason' - on one hand, and none on the other. As someone who likes those sorts of things, living in places like that is completely worthwhile if affordable.
> “Hacking” this by figuring out exactly what you want and finding it in a less in-demand place is a great move if you work remotely.
I referenced that in my GP comment - absolutely, don't imitate others, find what you want!
That's easier in places like NY and SF, where people are receptive to that and they don't enforce conformity or think you are too outside the pale with some wild idea or behavior. You're startup idea might not get much support in much of the world.
I've worked remotely for years and currently live in Hong Kong (a city where rent is close to Manhattan prices). Why do I live there? Because I appreciate the restaurants available, the variety of food, the regular theater performances from all over the world, the easy access to hiking trails and beaches while living in a densely populated city, access to museums and activities for my kid.
I was raised in a tiny village, I hate the countryside, it's so utterly boring, I want a short commute to all the activities the city offers and I love public transport.
My grandparents raised my parents in large cities. My parents raised their children in small towns. All of the children moved to large cities.
I often describe the town I was raised in as "a great place to raise children and an awful place to be a teenager".
First time I went to HK in the 90s, I remember being insanely impressed that I could go down the lift in our hotel and step out into an underground department store and food court full of stalls. And then from there, a tiny walk to countless other things. Not going to appeal to everyone but I can absolutely see why it appeals to some.
My city affords me, with a 20 minute drive, access to Michelin star quality restaurants, events that other people travel across the planet to attend, constant awesome concerts with the biggest stars, and hundreds (thousands?) of mom-and-pops. I friggin love it here, and it’s only like 40 minutes to some of the most beautiful natural landscapes I could hope for.
I COULD live in $cheaperCity, but then I’m paying tons of money to go somewhere I actually want to be, not to mention needing to plan a whole trip for many of these things, which gets way harder when you’re one of millions trying to get to the city for that event.
Because corporations literally forbid people working for them and living in some cheap places. My corporation forbids this, I must live withing commute distance of any of our offices, despite working full remote for years. They also made a weak try to shove us back in the office in 2023, but that was universally ignored and not enforced thankfully.
Location, location, location. Some parts of the country are nicer than others. Most people don't consider rural areas where the land is flat and mostly cornfields (with a possibility of tornadoes) to be a nice place to live. I live about an hour from the ocean and an hour from year round skiing in the mountains. Lots of hills and forests. I had to pay $250,000 for a 4,000 sq foot home on a wooded acre when I bought it three years ago, but I don't mind spendin that much when I am close into the city and so close to nature.
It's very simple: they like the benefits of living in the expensive places, as distinct from closeness to work in particular.
As a remote tech worker who moved from the Bay to a (much) cheaper place - I agree that the expensive places are expensive for a reason - but if one can articulate what specifically they're looking for, it's almost always possible to find it in a significantly cheaper cost-of-living area.
I'm not sure that's true. I occasionally look around and can't really find anything all that cheap that fits my preferences, but maybe I'm too picky.
* Politically blue or at least purple
* Reasonably dense/transitable by something other than a car (public transit and/or bike)
* Wide variety of restaurants/groceries (mostly in terms of ethnicities/cultures), especially Asian food
* Low(-ish) crime rate
The third one is maybe the hardest, because it basically requires a substantial population, though number 2 is pretty hard in the US as well.
> if one can articulate what specifically they're looking for, it's almost always possible to find it in a significantly cheaper cost-of-living area.
Isn't that the basic essential of designing tech - the narrower your specs the less expensive your solution, so articulate them very specifically.
I don't know that I buy "almost always" though. If your spec is world-class _____, you probably need to be in one of a few cities.
> To me working remote means I can live anywhere I want. Why not live where you get a lot more for your money?
Sadly that only goes if you don't intend to leave your house for anything but grocery shopping.
If you'd rather hang out with friends at a concert and a pub after, you're stuck with the wanted and expensive places.
> Why not live where you get a lot more for your money?
Because I would have to spend a lot of my money to not be miserable, and ultimately still be worse off.
Places that are cheap to live are cheap for a reason.
Because I don’t pick where I live based on why I can get for my money. That’s like - the least of my concerns.
This is the definition of gentrification. And not a bad thing but this is where it starts...
Question from Eastern European: Which religion is prevalent in the USA? Masonic orders? Scientology? Atheism?
I noticed that there you have more masonic temples than churches in every city.
It's Christianity by a wide margin (about 2/3rds of the population). I'm not sure where you get the idea there are more masonic lodges than churches. Just a quick check for my state, Massachusetts, shows about 300 masonic lodges and about 4000 churches.
I’ll put it this way to contrast with the other post on Hackernews about Americans driving their kids to school:
There is a much higher likelihood of a child being within walking distance of a church than they are to be within walking distance of a school.
> I noticed that there you have more masonic temples than churches in every city.
This is nonsense. I doubt you've even been to the US if you're making claims like this.
https://www.google.com/maps/search/churches+in+Boone/@36.206...
https://www.google.com/maps/search/masons+in+Boone/@36.20686...
One Masonic Lodge vs 18 churches. Repeat that experiment with a bunch of random cities and you'll find that outside of the very high population cities (NYC, Chicago, Atlanta, etc.) there are rarely more than one or two lodges, if they even have one at all.
culturally-Christian atheists, mostly, followed by a lot of the less-mainline versions of Christianity
Pew polls show about 5% or slightly less identify as atheists. About 30% (including atheists) are non-religious. About 60% identify as Christian. Then a few other groups that are 1-2%: Jewish, Mormon, Buddhist, Muslim.
Your statement of "mostly" is an extreme (10x) overstatement.
The text above was from memory. I just looked it up and I was pretty accurate: https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/
I take umbrage at another aspect of your statement: "culturally Christian atheists". I've heard this pointed specifically at me by people saying things like, "You are Christian, you just don't know it." That say that because I tend to be sensitive/kind/helpful/low ego. Yes, good Christians should be those things, but that doesn't mean that Christianity owns those traits or that those traits didn't exist and weren't valued before Christianity came along.
I don’t disagree! but among Americans who do not go to church, most of them have parents or grandparents or great-grandparents who attended Christian church regularly, and some of that culture is still prevalent in subtle things like “protestant work ethic”
If you asked the typical American protestant (who does NOT go to church every week BTW) if they really believe in the whole god and heaven and hell thing, a lot of 'em are gonna hem and haw. It's closer to a social club than an old school religion.
Evangelical Protestants, Catholics, and mainline Protestants make up 60% of the US population. Atheism isn't that common, maybe 5-10% of the population depending on definition.
> I noticed that there you have more masonic temples than churches in every city.
... Eh?
The US probably has more churches, as in physical buildings, per capita than anywhere else in the world.
Freemasonry isn't a religion, though it has vague religious trappings, but in any case it's fairly absurd to suggest that there are more masonic buildings than churches in the US.