Can an edifice represent a faith adequately?

[petrushka.googol]

According to me at a broader level religion is a sociological exercise where people with some common ground meet and feel the need to reflect.

 

Can an edifice, however imposing, adequately represent a complex ideology like a faith?

 

Can it encapsulate human emotions and provide a channel for connecting with the Unknown?

 

Can't we worship in the open, like some of our pristine ancestors?

 

Apart from providing a common space for assembly, is there any deeper import of this place of congregation?

 

Please opine.

[John Cuthber]

"Can it encapsulate human emotions and provide a channel for connecting with the Unknown?"

Since faith can't do that, the point is moot.

 

"Can't we worship in the open, like some of our pristine ancestors?"

Apparently, it's allowed in Christianity

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

http://biblehub.com/matthew/18-20.htm

 

And it seems fairly common in other faiths too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumbh_Mela

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajj

[Phi for All]

Some churches are more congregational, built as a gathering place as you mentioned. Others are meant to be awe-inspiring works of intimidating grandeur, a place where lowly creatures can come closer to their deity in an atmosphere of reverence and respect.

 

I think it's the approach of the religion that dictates the edifices they build. One seems more attractive (in that it seeks to attract) and inspirational, the other somewhat oppressive and somber, but again, some religions focus on the love of God, others on the wrath of God.

[lamironi]

The material edifice of church is very important, but not the most important.
It should help us come to The God.

[petrushka.googol]

The material edifice of church is very important, but not the most important.

It should help us come to The God.

 

The moot point is whether brick and mortar columns are pillars of the church literally or figuratively, if you get my drift...

[Phi for All]

I think the edifice was much more important to earlier churches, when they were trying to solidify concepts. If you want to show stability and trustworthiness, build something that will last. If you want to make it attractive, put things inside that people don't get to see very often. If you want to make people humble before their god, make the building intimidating so they'll respect it.

 

I think the more sophisticated the culture, the less they need the physical reminders.

[petrushka.googol]

I think the edifice was much more important to earlier churches, when they were trying to solidify concepts. If you want to show stability and trustworthiness, build something that will last. If you want to make it attractive, put things inside that people don't get to see very often. If you want to make people humble before their god, make the building intimidating so they'll respect it.

 

I think the more sophisticated the culture, the less they need the physical reminders.

 

"Imposing" is contextual. Look at the Tower of Babel. It too was imposing but instead of signifying an obeisance to the Powers that be, it turned out to portray an acquiescence with the Devil.

[Phi for All]

 

"Imposing" is contextual. Look at the Tower of Babel. It too was imposing but instead of signifying an obeisance to the Powers that be, it turned out to portray an acquiescence with the Devil.

 

I didn't think the tower was supposed to be an obeisance to God, I thought it was the opposite. God commanded the people to spread across the Earth but the tower builders wanted to centralize their religion in a single place. I don't really buy into the whole "stairway to heaven" part, since the plain where the tower was built was ringed by mountains, which anyone could see would give you a huge headstart on trying to reach the heavens.

 

Imposing is contextual, but the context I was talking about is appealing to ignorant worshippers. In that sense, the things they generally find imposing are somewhat universal. Things made of gold, really tall ceilings that seem to magically NOT fall down, officials dressed in splendid colors and rich fabrics, real glass in the windows stained with pictures and patterns, and above all the concept that the god actually resides in the edifice all help to provide conditions where the common man would be humbled by the imposing power of his deity.

[Dekan]

 

I didn't think the tower was supposed to be an obeisance to God, I thought it was the opposite. God commanded the people to spread across the Earth but the tower builders wanted to centralize their religion in a single place. I don't really buy into the whole "stairway to heaven" part, since the plain where the tower was built was ringed by mountains, which anyone could see would give you a huge headstart on trying to reach the heavens.

 

Imposing is contextual, but the context I was talking about is appealing to ignorant worshippers. In that sense, the things they generally find imposing are somewhat universal. Things made of gold, really tall ceilings that seem to magically NOT fall down, officials dressed in splendid colors and rich fabrics, real glass in the windows stained with pictures and patterns, and above all the concept that the god actually resides in the edifice all help to provide conditions where the common man would be humbled by the imposing power of his deity.

That's an excellent explanation. Big things appeal to us. Like Stonehenge, and the Pyramids. And later - the medieval Christian cathedrals!

These were not as big perhaps, in total mass, as their predecessors.

 

But they had these advantages:

 

1 . A soaring perpendicularity, which seemed to thrust upwards into the heavens. Unlike the rather squat Pyramids.

2. A wealth of intricately detailed carvings- the angels and gargoyles. Unlike the flat bland casements of the Pyramids.

 

and perhaps above all -

 

3. The huge multi-coloured stained-glass windows! How impressive they must have been, with their big panes of "pure crystal", illuminating scenes from the Gospel!

Nowadays, we can't appreciate what these windows meant, because we're used to colour television. But to people in medieval times, who were comparatively starved of colour and image., the cathedral windows must have been a stunning experience.

 

Which was bound to impress them, and make them feel religious, and worship the power of their deity

Edited May 28, 2014 by Dekan

[petrushka.googol]

From the most recent post, I would be tempted to conclude that "Size indeed does matter". Scale together with pomp and circumstance are a heady mix to stoke the fancy of the average hedonist....This is my general observation, not specific to the scenario discussed above (please note).

Edited May 29, 2014 by petrushka.googol

[Phi for All]

If we're making observations, I'd like to note that much of the ceremonies, rituals, and processes associated with certain major religions seem very similar to what casino designers attempt to do with their edifices. They want a place where people don't think too much about what they're doing or saying, where it's hard to focus on your thoughts and easy to listen and go with the flow. They want impulsive, irrational acceptance of the whole process and everything they do supports this.

 

Razzle-dazzle with the promise of future riches if you'll just play along. Put the coins right here.