No wonder the fundie Muslims were pissed--the WTC complex was apparently patterned after the Grand Mosque of Mecca! And no, this ain't the Onion.

http://www.slate.com/id/2060207

This is old news.
Glad you're getting up to speed.

What is considered Islamic design was created from pre-Islamic Egyptian, Persian, and Byzantine architecture.

BTW, there is absolutely no reason or excuse that justifies the terrorist acts committed against the WTC.

There is "motivation," which is one of the ways you can both solve a crime and help make it more difficult to repeat.

Then there is "bigotry," which involves scapegoating an entire class of people.

There is no excuse. But there was certainly a reason that justified the attacks in the minds of the people who perpetrated them.

Oh, and BTW, I'm sure the architect, who spent all that time before and after designing the WTC working on Saudi projects, was thinking the whole time "cool, I'll introduce some pre-Islamic elements into this."

Or perhaps he was just influenced by the

Islamic architecture

all around him during that other work. Which he was performing for Muslims. Who are also what is known as

Islamic.

"The architect", Minoru Yamasaki, a Seattle native who also designed Seattle's Pacific Science Center, Puget Sound Plaza, and the IBM building, was heavily influenced by French architect LeCorbusier; Gothic and Indian architecture.

What was he thinking?

First of all, he was thinking of designing a romantic modernistic high rise of beauty.
Then he was thinking he would design narrow vertical windows due to his acrophobia.
Then he was thinking how to accomplish it structurally.

Ironically, he was thinking:




Why don't you actually research that which you attempt to babble about?

RTFA, idiot.

Beavis, I will try to type slowly so you will have a better chance of comprehending. The architecture used in building mosques was used in ancient Greek and Roman and Indian architecture long before little Muhammad set foot on earth. Neither Muhammad, Islam, nor Yamasaki created the original.

Btw, you might want to check the definition of "mecca".
And what do the arcades in Mecca's courtyard remind you of?

Crosses were around before Jesus, too. I guess the cross on a building is no guarantee of any connection to Christianity, then. Thanks for the tip.

The Christian cross is neither architectural building design,
nor is it used in my Christian church as a symbol.

Maybe not in your church, however, the cruciform or cross-shaped church has been rather common in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches and is considered an architectural style.

Amiens Cathedral, Notre-Dame de Paris, and the cathedrals in Canterbury and Salisbury are cruciform, as just a few famous examples. Some have transept arms too short to show on the outside of the building but they still have the basic cruciform shape.

Granted, this style is not often used in modern churches. However, the Parish Church of St. Patrick was rebuilt in the cruciform shape as early as the late 1800's. St. Stephen Catholic Church in Glenwood Springs was built in the 1940's in the cruciform design.

Anyway, there are numerous other examples, both old and newer, although it was more common during Medieval and Renaissance times. And it is, indeed, an architectural style.

More correctly referred to as tetraconch.

Cruciform architecture is found in the ancient Egyptian pyramids.
Christian cross design? Hardly.

Oh, that's RICH. All those cathedrals built in the shape of a cross...to reference ancient Egypt? Not as a physical reference to the cross Jesus was crucified on?



Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity Chapel, at St. Thomas Aquinas College. The caption on this picture from their website reads, The Chapel's cruciform shape resembles the crucified Christ. The sanctuary represents Our Lord's sacred head, the transept His arms outstretched on the cross, and the nave His body.

There are approximately 109,099 more easily accessed with just a quick Google search. Shall I go on, or can we stipulate that your assertion is simply silly?

Sure. It's used at Angkor Wat, too. But the symbolism is different.

I have no idea why you are so vociferously denying what is conventional knowledge about church architecture. Well, I'm done.

Voila! You just made my point.
Not "Christian architecture", but Hindu!
And in the pyramids, it's Egyptian!

Cruciform, tetraconch, mystic Tau, crus ansata, Chi-Rho, labarum...all pagan, predating Christ.

Next you're going to tell me that the animatronic Billy Bass is a Christian toy because a fish is a Christian symbol.

The Christian churches took the cruciform and made it it's own. The symbolism is explicit and intricately described on numerous websites about the numerous churches built in this style.

Do you think Christmas is a Christian holiday? Most of the traditions of Christmas, even the date itself, is based on pagan holidays. So, using your logic, there is no Christ in Christmas. Really?

No, I did not prove your point.

So, I guess different builders have different uses for the symbolism of their shapes. They have different influences, etc. To understand what the shapes and structure are based on, I guess we would have to go to the architect and see what he said about the influences in his design. Too bad the article didn't mention that. Oh, wait. It did.

The article quoted one architect's (Laurie Kerr's) opinion.

Yamasaki spoke of incorporating mysticism (there was Kabbalah symbolism in the WTC design), power, and strength into the WTC design. It is just as likely that Bin Laden struck the WTC, and initially from the left (north) tower ("Boaz" - meaning strength)...because the architecture is considered Gothic/Templar/Masonic.

And if you look closely, the WTC was covered with giant tuning forks, a British invention. lol.

The above all depends on how deeply you are willing to examine, understand, and know God's will concerning Christianty.

On the surface, Testamints seem like Christian candy.
And c'mon, I have Jewish friends who celebrate Christmas, and they are not Messianic Jews.

OK, so you think Christmas is a secular holiday. Interesting. I'm surprised.

So this is what Bizarro World looks like.

This is where it would be helpful if you would think more deeply and carefully about God's Word and true Christian relationship and response to it.

The answers to these questions are found in the Bible:

1. Was Christ born on December 25th?
2. Is celebrating Christ's birth on December 25th biblical?
3. Did the Apostle's observe Christ's birth, on December 25th or any other day?
4. Did Christ instruct us to observe His birth?
5. What did Christ instruct us to do in remembrance of Him?
6. Does not every calendar day belong to the Lord?
7. Constantine was a sun-worshipper and acted apostatically. Surprise, surprise.



Christ's Spirit can deal with you about that.

Hilarious.

In Ikyworld,

Christmas has nothing to do with Christ.

The Prince of Peace was a warmonger and ardent advocate of torture.

Even though it's explicitly stated, the cruciform architectural pattern found in cathedrals...isn't representative of the crucifixion.

I hear a calliope playing carnival music!

You are the Mistress of Deflection, that's for sure.

What exactly that I posted do you consider deflection?

1. The cruciform predates Christ by at least a couple thousand years...so we know the cruciform is not a "Christian" shape. Shapes are not Christian.

2. The stauros (again predating Jesus by a loooong shot) was used by the Romans for crucifixion and was certainly not "Christian." Many Jews and pagans were crucified on the stauros. Neither Christ nor His Apostles crucified anyone upon a stauros. Therefore, the stauros, the crux, the cross, is not Christian.

3. You know the history of "Christmas" - December 25th...it's a tradition started and expanded upon by man. It's origin had everything to do with Tammuz, a pagan god, whom Constantine, a counterfeit Christian, worshipped. God's Word tells us not to blend pagan practices into our worship of the Holy Living God. As you profess to be a Christian, you must know that we are commanded to worship in spirit and in truth.

Christ wasn't born on December 25th any more than I was. He was born Tishri 15, on the first day of Sukkot, Feast of Tabernacles. Zechariah 14 states that one day, after the return of Christ, everyone will be required to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles or suffer consequences. It always falls sometime in late September to early October.

So what is Christ's mass? It is the death sacrifice or "destruction of the victim." Merry Christmas, eh?

Is Christmas, December 25th Christian? In order to determine that you must ask yourself if it aligns with God's Word and Christ's teachings. So, does it? No.

No deflection, just the facts.

Suddenly I'm craving chinese food...

The line, the point and the plane predate all religions and mankind itself, therefore we can never attribute any significance to any symbolic representation of anything, anywhere, ever, including the lines and points in the planes that make up everything you've ever posted.

Or you're just being a douchebag. Occam's Razor.



Which means that all those crosses on all those churches on all those altars and on all those Bibles everywhere mean absolutely squat? What are you, an atheist?

Or a douchebag. There's pesky old Occam again.

No, I'm not going down that rabbit hole. Not worth it. Fine, have it your way, millions of people over the last two thousand years are wrong.

As a Protestant Christian, are you in agreement that Mary is Christ's co-redemptrix...the "Mediatrix of the entire world", the "gate of heaven" who dispenses ALL Graces, created and uncreated, according to Roman Catholicism?

If she's not, then millions of people over several hundreds of years are wrong.

If she is, then millions of people over several hundreds are of are wrong.

It's not hard to get Christianity wrong. Stray from God's Holy Word, the Bible, and you have a 100% chance of getting it wrong. Have you not read Christ's letters to the churches? He needed to correct them less than 70 years after His Ascension.

Show me in the Bible where either Jesus or the Apostles ordained and authorized the cross as a "Christian symbol" either on churches on in churches or as jewelry, etc. You can't because they didn't. Am I wrong?

Do you take communion as the Lord has instructed? It's the bread and the cup, Funky, not the cross: the bread, His body; the cup, the new testament. (Luke 22)

The choice remains the same today as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow, God willing: who will you believe and follow, the millions or Jesus?

Nothing you wrote negates the symbolism of the cruciform in church architecture.

So, am I going to hell if I take communion in a church decorated with crosses while holding my Bible with a cross on the binding? Bah!

Cruciforms were around long before Christianity, pagan symbols used in pagan architecture. Just as in ancient times, people today need to learn the difference between the profane and the holy. In God's Word, "Christian" always refers to a person following Christ, never a thing.

Some clergy have been wearing pointy hats longer than there have been tetraconch shaped churches. Are you going to argue that pointy hats are a symbol of Christianity?

How about cruciform tails on aircraft? Christian?

Perhaps the blue cross of that insurance company! No?



Try not to be such a drama queen.
You should already know your requirement/God's expectation for communion. If you don't, you can find it in the Bible.

Also, we're told who is going to hell and why.

You have lost your sense of humor.

And you are lukewarm.

Well, it is a little chilly today compared to yesterday's sunny day.

Funky, I am exhorting you as one Christian to another, as we should in all sincerity and Christian love, to study and re-examine your faith on a deeper level. We weren't redeemed by corrupted men instituting traditions of worship and conversation which mix the holy with paganism, but by the Blood of Christ who instructed us concerning worship in spirit and in truth. Do I have a sense of humor about that? No, not really. You're right about that.

...by which standards, you are on the Hell Express.

"Physician," heal thyself.

We, on the other hand, experience great mirth at your habit of turning every discussion into an opportunity to save our souls.

[video:google]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7282817744201330960#[/video]

Because I understand architecture and symbolism, I'm going to Hell? That seems a stretch. My faith is fine, thank you.

Show me where I posted anything remotely suggesting that you were "going to Hell" because you "understand architecture and symbolism".



And that's the difference between us.
I want to learn and understand more about the Christian faith. I'm not content to automatically accept "Christian traditions" begun by corrupt men 300 years after the Apostolic Age of the Church without holding them up to scripture, and I'm certainly not appeased by "but we've always done it (or labeled it or spoken about it) this way".

Christ was beaten and tortured in the bloody laying down of His life for us that we might be saved. It seems to me that giving the sacrifice He made for His Church some deeper examination and thought, including how He would want His name used, and which symbolism He would want attached to His Bride, is the least those who call themselves Christian can do in return.

I think it was the "you are lukewarm" statement. Doesn't that mean I get spat out?

Knowing, understanding and acknowledging that those traditional symbols exist is one thing. My faith is something else.

Why are you confusing the two?

My cult's better than your cult.
My cult's better than yours.
My cult's better
Cuz we got the Holy Spirit!
My cult's better than yours.

You all are so silly.

Oh boy. No wonder you hate gays--you're fantasizing about a gay marriage with Jesus!

Nowhere in the Bible is reference made to the Church as "the bride." Allusions are made to similarities between the husband/wife relationship, but how many ways can those be interpreted?

The Comedy of Iky continues.

And you are a pharisee.

You obviously are confused as to what that term means.
Encouraging someone to think more deeply about their (Christian) faith given to us biblically by Jesus and His Apostles, eschewing the traditions of men rooted in paganism which have morphed into modern "Christian" worship, is exactly the opposite of pharisaical.

Revelation 21 identifies the Bride of Christ.
And lo and behold...it's foursquare...not cruciform.
So if someone wants to label an architectural shape/design as "Christian", it would be foursquare architecture.
No crosses in Christ's Kingdom.

No. I don't believe I'm confused. I wouldn't expect the noisy gong to understand the sounds it is making.

Using what's in Revelation 21, your comments make no sense whatsoever, so I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you were using "bride of christ" in the common evangelical sense as meaning the church itself.

No crosses in the kingdom? No, I don't suppose that, having died on one, Jeebus would be too keen to be confronted with more of them. But...not a Christian symbol? All those churches and bible publishers and other Christians are wrong?

Y'know, I can be damned arrogant, Iky, but at least I don't pretend I'm not.

This is the quote of mine that you cited:



Which "symbol of Christianity" had we been discussing?
The cross/cruciform.
Christ didn't ordain it as a symbol to identify His Church, nor did His Apostles.
So if you must attach a shape to "Christianity", the tabernacle is the architectural design which symbolizes the Kingdom of Christ.

Biblically, the tabernacle is foursquare shape, not cruciform.
The Bride of Christ.
You can't get more Christian than that.

So...



I will answer the same way Jesus answered the question of John's baptism:
The cross, a "Christian symbol" from heaven, or of men?

Point out exactly what I have posted that is pharisaical.

Chilaros, tepid, lukewarm.
Yes, Christ did say that He would spit out the lukewarm.
His words, His warning.

You profess to be a Christian, and yet you neglect regular worship with other believers which we are warned not to do.

You condemn and dismiss biblical instruction by the Apostle Paul, even though the Apostle Peter confirmed Paul's writing as scripture.

You support two people of the same sex entering together into holy matrimony, an institution ordained by God, even though Jesus reaffirmed that marriage is only between one man and one woman.

And you believe your faith and your examination and practice of your faith (Christianity) is just fine, even though we are warned against thinking that we stand sufficient, and are instructed to grow in the knowledge and understanding of our faith.

Yes, I'm concerned your tap is set to lukewarm.
And my concern has little to do with "symbols" or Christmas.

Well, I guess I'll just have accept what common ground we do have, and clearly, that is that most people are wrong about religion. Really, whatever your views are, a vast majority thinks you are completely wrong.

I usually stay out of religious stuff but sometimes I just can't sit back. I have a cousin who is a retired minister. I will quote his facebook page for today:



His father, retired also from the ministry but ALWAYS being asked to preach almost on a weekly basis, has 64 years of continuous service to the same Lord you believe in. The condemnations of Funky would never have come from his mouth. It is totally not needed and I find it offensive. Both he and his son have brought many, many, many people to God without it.

As to Pharisees, I imagine they felt really good about themselves as the quoted laws and pronounced their own condemnations. Superior in their knowledge and godlike in their condemnations. That sounds a lot like your post and can only inspire one to puke.

Finally none of this belongs in the Political forum but I doubt that means much to those that cannot help themselves.

1. The person who originated this thread brought religion into it.

2. It's interesting that your cousin was preaching at First Baptist. I would imagine, therefore, that he is familiar with the preaching of Charles Spurgeon. I will leave you with this Spurgeon quote from the April 1868 Sword and Trowel. Perhaps you will pass it on to your cousin:

Christianity approves of holy boldness in reproof, and integrity in declaring the whole counsel of God, but Churchianity loves gaiety and frivolity, and would have a dumb dog in the pulpit, who will not rebuke it.

They don't follow Charles Spurgeon and have not dedicated their lives to Charles. That might be the difference in opinions. I don't really think they would be impressed with your suggestion nor do many real ministers need those ugly tools.

Conversations like this bring waves of nausea over me. Typeth on and I will try my best to ignore your religious posts, wherever they might turn up.

I never skip the funny pages.

I didn't suggest that they followed or dedicated their lives to Charles Spurgeon, did I? But his quote was spot on, true then, true today. The only difference between many churches (and many Christians for that matter) and the world, is the T-shirt.

"Ugly tools"? You think that holy boldness in reproof and integrity of declaring the whole counsel of God are ugly tools? If you knew the Bible you would know that they are by the commandment of God.

2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

Do the pastors in your family ignore that instruction?
"Real ministers" don't pick and choose which commandments of God they feel like obeying, preaching, and teaching.




Conversations concerning the whole counsel of God do many things to many people. Some are moved to rage, others to humility. They make you queasy. Pity. Honestly, I had no idea that your psyche was so fragile.

Proverbs 12:1...he who hates correction is stupid.

Well, any answer to your incomprehension to what nauseates me is in those four words. Yourself... holy.... bold and <snicker> thinking anyone would mistake you as someone who has authority to issue reproof is rich.

When I read your posts I flash back to the Alice in Wonderland scene where the caterpillar asks of Alice:

Who .. Are .. You.

I mean, really, who are you. Let me give you a clue. At the very least you have no authority except that which you have deluded yourself in thinking that you have. You are delusional in that.

This is tedious and you are not capable of understanding anyway.

And yet you shave...and eat shellfish and bacon...and hate gay people. Which means you pick and choose.

How ironic!

Are you a Christian? If not, you are the one without standing in this conversation, as you are of the world and not of Christ's Kingdom. Funky professes to be a Christian. I am a Christian. This is between two Christians and God's Word. 1 Corinthians 5:12, written to all Christians, gives me the standing as one member of the Body to another.

Funky has posted heretical views on this board. If I didn't care about her as one member of the faith to another, I would say nothing. However, it's my responsibility as a Christian to another Christian, as others have done for me in the past. That's how Christians grow in knowledge and understanding. The Apostles went toe to toe on certain issues with each other, calling one another out when needed.

So if encouraging her to think more deeply about her Christian faith and God's Word irritates your thin skin and fragile psyche, too bad. That's really not my problem.



Try to retain this 411 once and for all.
That was Levitcal law under the old covenant.
I am neither a Levite nor Jewish, never have been.
Levitical law does not apply to me, never has.
Jesus Christ mediated a new and better covenant for believers, with no shaving or dietary laws, except against eating the meat of strangled animals.




Same old tired ridiculous gay card. Pointing out that Jesus reaffirmed holy matrimony being restricted to one man marrying one woman and becoming one flesh, does not even remotely suggest or imply that Jesus and/or I "hate gay people".

I knew you you were incapable of understanding.

I understand clear biblical instruction and the responsibilities of one Christian to another.

I also understand what Christ said in John 15:18-19.

Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable!

Wow. It must be a wonderful feeling to be so powerful that you can declare another person a heretic. You would have loved the Spanish Inquisition. Oh, those were the days!

In 2 Peter 3:15-16, the Apostle Peter confirms that Paul's writings are inspired scripture.

It is heretical (holding an unorthodox religious opinion) to reject and dismiss them.

Funky has previously stated on this board that she rejects Paul's writings.


Funky has also stated that when she attends church, she fellowships at a UMC.

The UMC Articles of Religion (Doctrinal Standards) state:

"Article V—Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation

The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the church. The names of the canonical books are:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, The First Book of Samuel, The Second Book of Samuel, The First Book of Kings, The Second Book of Kings, The First Book of Chronicles, The Second Book of Chronicles, The Book of Ezra, The Book of Nehemiah, The Book of Esther, The Book of Job, The Psalms, The Proverbs, Ecclesiastes or the Preacher, Cantica or Songs of Solomon, Four Prophets the Greater, Twelve Prophets the Less.

All the books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account canonical."


If Funky maintains her rejection of Paul's writings, she maintains an unorthodox Christian opinion, hence, heretical.

You disagree? Post your argument.

The Prophet Iky has spoken. Lo, he brooks no independent thought on the part of anyone, for he and he alone speaks for Jeebus.

No one expects the spastic inquisition!

Does Iky have a church in Florida?

My cult's better than your cult!
My cult's better than yours.
My cult's better cause we got the Holy Spirit!
My cult's better than yours.

People claiming better interpretations of religions or that one religion is better than another is like arguing over a discription of Santa Clause.

And some people spell funny!