Give me 1 (ONE) reason why this is a bad thing

Give me 1 (ONE) reason why this is a bad thing.

Protip: you can't.

Attached: 1553502683702.gif (480x360, 2.46M)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=wwi9Q9apHGI
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I have no fucking clue what this is but randomly destroying shit is a bad thing

That's a ch*rch.

Back when forums were a big thing, this gif would've been great as a userpic, or a signature

Destroing and giving nothing in change is stupid

Depends what you destroy.

destruction is part of creation

FUCK OFF COMMIES! THE TSAR SHOULD GAVE HANGED EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU! KOLCHAK DID NOTHING WRONG! WHITE PRIDE TSARDOM WIDE!

Bad thing, churches are good sniping spots in case of conflict.

so.. thanks for communism.. I guess.

Atheism is bad

Communism doesn't work for some reason.

Yeah right instead of fighting let’s get to te church and pray for winning. Dumb polish Vatican’s bitches.

Source?

Hebrews 6:4-6
It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

"Holy" books of various backwards desert cults are not a valid source.

>>reddit.com/r/atheism

>Destroying beautiful/historical buildings instead of converting them into libraries/museums/etc if are not going to be used for their original intended purposes anymore.
Dumb retard.

Attached: pepepistol.jpg (469x452, 22K)

All churches must be demolished and the materials to be used for corporations' HQs

youtube.com/watch?v=wwi9Q9apHGI

>Jordan Memerson
OH NO NO NO LOOOOL, all of your opinions are discarded now.

smells like /leftypol/ but ok

Without christians muslim will restoee normal values here

>mentally ill gyppo hungarians begging for attention
lmao lol

They won't if you make religion illegal.
Rude and uncalled for.

Could have been made into a museum or something and keeping the aesthetics

Museums don't work if nobody wants to visit them and libraries are better off using a differently shaped/styled building.

If you really value those "beautiful historical buildings", how about you actually fucking visit them and pay for their upkeep? Or donate to the church so they can pay to upkeep it? Is it because that would require actually putting your money where your mouth is rather than virtue signalling about "degenerates"?

>They won't if you make religion illegal.
Because that worked so well the last time.

Someone's butthurt it seems. Our churches are running well and problem-free, I'm just responding to OP.

Also
>what is tourism?

Based. Fuck abrah*mic desert religions

>beautiful
>orthodog church

Based

Öld meg magad, korcs

It's bad for the artistic value of churches. Other than that organized religions are basically mafia

>Someone's butthurt it seems.
I am

>Our churches are running well and problem-free
Good. Malta won't face cultural retardation and decline for a while then.

>I'm just responding to OP
My point still stands. Churches have value as long as they have a purpose. If not, then they become a moneysink nobody really wants around. Like that one church that was broken down in France a while back and FN started whining about how this is a cultural marxist conspiracy to destroy French culture or whatever. Of course offering not a zero euro to keep it upright in the process.

>what is tourism?
That implies every little village church draws in tourists, let alone enough tourists to cover the costs of the upkeep of the church.

And then we have meme opinions like this
>Churches good
>Paying for these churches bad

They should be maintained like museums are. Most of the money that goes to churches is used to pay for priest etc. And being a priest isn't a real job

Huh.

>They should be maintained like museums are.
And who's going to pay for it? Wait a second, are you saying people should be taxed to keep churches operational? Are you proposing... dare I say... a tithe?

>I am
Why?

>Malta won't face cultural retardation and decline for a while then.
Lol, if only.

>Churches have value as long as they have a purpose
That's why I said they can be re-purposed. A museum & library were just two examples I could come up with at the time of writing. Maybe some get re-purposed as a theatre, or some kind of a multipurpose hall? What I had in mind is having the church turned into a museum/archive relating to the town it's in. Now of course you can't do that with all churches since we have a shit load of churches here. I'd hate to see them torn down only to be replaced by a concrete tower of apartments.

>That implies every little village church draws in tourists, let alone enough tourists to cover the costs of the upkeep of the church.
I can only speak for Malta, of course. I think every town here gets a bit of tourist traffic, some more than other of course. If a town has something for them to see, then I'm sure more tourists will be attracted to the town.
The amount of tourists visiting Malta is always increasing, and so is the amount of days they stay here so I don't think that for the time being that would be a problem.

And, I know of at least one church that at least during a specific periods of time, you have to pay to enter. It's the Cathedral of the Assumption in Gozo. We didn't go in but you could see tourists doing so.

t. Schlomo Goldberg

Attached: IMG_20190310_192602_713.jpg (1247x898, 335K)

>Why?
I dislike hypocrisy, so I dislike people who say one thing but do something else.

>That's why I said they can be re-purposed.
They can, and where that's the most efficient use it will, but we cannot force this in cases where it would be more efficient to break down the church for a building that would be more efficient in upkeep. Churches tend to be very elaborate (unless they're American style megachurches [even then, you could argue that the existence of these megachurches is proof that in America there's a growing demand for churches]) and their upkeep isn't exactly cheap. In such instances you could at best sell certain elements to already existing museums.

>If a town has something for them to see, then I'm sure more tourists will be attracted to the town.
How many is more? Nobody will come to a country's second tier city because it has a church. Nobody will go to Spree (where?) to visit that one church (what?). What keeps that church alive is whether or not the locals attend it and donate for its upkeep.

Yes, certain churches end up being tourist attractions. The Notre Dame being most famous among them. But not all churches are like that, such churches are by definition the attraction. That's because they were built for worship, not for the sake of drawing tourists. If that was the main purpose of churches, there'd be A LOT less of them built. A LOT.

As museums yes, for the art they contain. But all priest etc should find a real job

Okay, so your brilliant solution is
>Tax everyone to keep the churches open
>Fire the priests so they can get "real jobs"
So what you end up with is tax money being sunk into literally nothing. It's sunk in buildings that nobody can even use anymore (no priests) and nobody wants (even the Christians go to church primarily to attend mass). Luckily you'll never have control over anything larger and more significant than your dick, because this shit is retarded on multiple levels.

But hey, you personally like churches and hate priest so everyone should be forced to pay for something you personally like and a class of people you personally dislike should be abolished because you personally dislike them.

I guess we could reverse what happened in the past, were a smaller church was torn down to build a bigger one. What "bothers" me is what would happen to the stuff in it. The gold, paintings, statues, tapestry, etc.
I'd just want something, somehow to preserve all of this. Handing them to already existing museums is a good idea. What also "bothers" me is that the towns would have one or more less nice looking buildings in them,
given the horrid shit we're building nowadays. I can't explain myself properly I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say.

>Nobody will come to a country's second tier city because it has a church
Well, I'm talking about churches in a country which you can go across in less than 2 hours. If it's time or distance that you're referring to, in our case it's not that much of a problem. And they could always
visit us a second time. Part of making the country tourism friendly is having people visit more than one time.

>Yes, certain churches end up being tourist attractions. The Notre Dame being most famous among them. But not all churches are like that, such churches are by definition the attraction. That's because they were built for worship, not for the sake of drawing tourists. If that was the main purpose of churches, there'd be A LOT less of them built. A LOT.
You're right. What I was trying to say is that tourists are willing to pay to enter a church.

I'm saying I'll pay to keep the art inside the churches like we do for monuments etc (those are also not "used") because art is the only decent thing religion produced. Luckily priest are already disappearing and churches already being turned into museums in my country so I won't have to move a finger for that