modern temples - what should they be like?

[DashesAgainst]

Why not?

I'm thinking there's a misunderstanding here.

But no matter. I don't want to derail your thread, so carry on.

[Star]

I'm thinking there's a misunderstanding here.

But no matter. I don't want to derail your thread, so carry on.

I don't think it's a derail at all, and I'd be interested to hear your answer. For that matter, I'd put the question to the thread at large: What are we talking about when we talk about something that "complements the natural environment"? And why is this an important factor in modern temple design?

[Star]

Such rigidity is why I'm not a recon, after all!

I haven't said a lot about it in the other thread because I don't have the time or energy to get into a big discussion right now, but--this stereotype is growing tiresome. (That statement is aimed at people in general, not at you personally; you just happen to be the most recent person I've seen express it.) Not all recons are trying to recreate ancient society and culture as though the intervening millennia haven't happened.

Personally, I identify as a recon because I'm trying to use what I know and understand of ancient beliefs, practices, values, and principles to build a working modern faith. Which means that while I think that we should definitely consider why ancient temples were built the way they were, that doesn't mean we have to (or even should) build new ones in exactly the same way using exactly the same materials and plans. (Which actually works rather nicely as a metaphor for how I see reconstructionism in general.)

[sailor]

Personally, I identify as a recon because I'm trying to use what I know and understand of ancient beliefs, practices, values, and principles to build a working modern faith. Which means that while I think that we should definitely consider why ancient temples were built the way they were, that doesn't mean we have to (or even should) build new ones in exactly the same way using exactly the same materials and plans. (Which actually works rather nicely as a metaphor for how I see reconstructionism in general.)

I'd tackle it from the other direction. Choose examples of the various ancient temples, and then decide what changes are 1) required for modern safety 2) modern conviences and then compare those to reasons for Not doing them.

For example, if the interior is over a certain size you'll need sprinklers. Is there any ancient religious reasons you can not have sprinklers? If you are going to have a fire pit, you'll need to design the fire system around that, but modern restaurants already do that.

Or maybe building with all stone is hideously expensive. Is there a religious reason that large stones have to be used? Or could you go with a stone sheath over concrete & steel beams?

The big one is shape of the building. Form follows function. Do you really need a large building if you are not going to be using most of it as a store house? Is a large building shaped like the Parthenon the best shape for a community building? Or would a modern building be better for the community part with a smaller ancient style temple for a statue and offerings work?

[kallimahos]

very very good both Star and Sailor, posts right to the point with some excellent questions

SeaShine you didn't derail the topic either

I'll respond later on friends

[DashesAgainst]

I haven't said a lot about it in the other thread because I don't have the time or energy to get into a big discussion right now, but--this stereotype is growing tiresome. (That statement is aimed at people in general, not at you personally; you just happen to be the most recent person I've seen express it.) Not all recons are trying to recreate ancient society and culture as though the intervening millennia haven't happened.

Personally, I identify as a recon because I'm trying to use what I know and understand of ancient beliefs, practices, values, and principles to build a working modern faith. Which means that while I think that we should definitely consider why ancient temples were built the way they were, that doesn't mean we have to (or even should) build new ones in exactly the same way using exactly the same materials and plans. (Which actually works rather nicely as a metaphor for how I see reconstructionism in general.)

No problem. My apologies if I offended anyone, and for lumping you all together.

I've encountered many recons online, both American & Greek, who have made it their mission to rigidly define who is and isn't practicing traditional Greek religion. Given that I have access to pretty much the same scholarly resources, and given that there are many "pieces" missing, I pretty much feel that I'm walking on level ground with them when it comes to my knowledge and practices. Granted, some say that Greeks have a cultural advantage, but I don't think it makes that much of a difference simply because the religion has been dead for so long. It is possible that some practices have been carried down, but what is left, time has diluted to homeopathic levels!

Which is why I refuse to defer to groups like YSEE as "the authority", although I do appreciate their efforts.

So my comment was more so a reflexive reaction to that kind of unbending, authoritarian stance.

But then I got to thinking about it, if Kallimahos wants to build a "votive" temple, one just to hold a cult image and offerings, then who am I to argue with him? That's why I backed out, fearing I'd derail the conversation.

Now I'll get into where I think there was a misunderstanding - perhaps more so on my side.

It started with this statement by Kallimahos:

I believe Jehova's witnesses are not a fitting paradigm for what we should do, because the worldviews are fundamentally different. Their divinity is placed somewhere out of nature, whereas in out case nature is divine by itself and the source of all divinity. Imho, a usual hall in some concrete building does not do much compliments to the natural environment.

Kallimahos seems to be arguing against using temples to house congregations, saying that it "doesn't compliment the environment." I'm thinking he means that our gods are ones of nature, and that we should be worshiping in a natural environment instead of separating ourselves from it behind concrete walls.

As I understand it, he doesn't like the example of Jehovah's Witnesses, because he considers their god as being distant and aloof, not part of nature -- his bias, and his supporting argument against worshiping indoors.

I disagree, because I consider humans part of nature too. And heck, I worship indoors all the time. It's never made a difference in ritual for me -- I still feel Their presence just the same.

I also personally believe in the existence of the JCI god, and think He's not much different than ours. My belief, my bias.

I also (mis)interpreted "doesn't compliment the environment" as meaning it would negatively impact the environment. Which, in my logic, would still happen if you built a temple according to the traditional requirements.

I blame the god awful heatwave that's presently baking my brain for that misunderstanding! Anyway, that was another reason why I decided to back out.

That said, I still disagree with his claim (if I'm understanding him right) that the gods should be worshiped outside. To my knowledge, many recons practice indoors simply out of convenience, so why not provide a place where they can worship together year round? And is it not more important to provide (sincere) worship than to avoid it because we don't have the right tools?

That last part is obviously my personal belief. It seems a lot of people in the recon community bang heads over which is more important - orthodoxy or orthopraxy. They're probably equally so, but I don't think one should defer to the other.

Finally, it's good to know that there are recons out there who are more flexible. It only makes sense that there would be, I just wish more would speak out. In fact, I think the Recon Movement has to have some flexibility, within reason, for it to grow.

Just my 2 coppers worth, though.

- SeaShine

[DashesAgainst]

I also (mis)interpreted "doesn't compliment the environment" as meaning it would negatively impact the environment. Which, in my logic, would still happen if you built a temple according to the traditional requirements.

Just to clarify, this is the main misunderstanding on my part. I'm thinking Kallimahos was only talking about worshiping outside/ following traditional requirements. Sorry. Brain is fudge.

[drekfletch]

some questions emerge here, like

1. What makes a material better than another?
2. Why did temples evolve from wooden to stone?
3. Was marble more favorable than stone and why?
4. Why pentelikon marble was deemed superior quality among other marbles?

The numbers are mine.
1. A whole host of factors. Economic feasability, scarecity derived value, structural integrity, aesthetics.

2. The most obvious reason is because of stone's resistance to decay. Appropriate for the homes of the Deathless. Related is stone's strength, allowing larger, more impressive dwellings. Another reason is the fact that building stone is/was abundant in the mediterranean.

3. Aside from the fact that marble is a stone, it's popularity probably came from being well suited to sculpture and it's prettyness. It wasn't uncommon for temples to use lesser, cheaper stone where it wasn't visible. Across the gulf from Athens, the Aiginetans used marble only on the last, lowest of the roof tiles.

4. Pentelikon marble was popular probably because of it's closeness to Athens as well as it's whiteness. According to Vitruvius, Ephesians chose between marble from Paros, Prokonnesos, Herakleia or Thasos.

A good resource for this is the book The Complete Greek Temples, by Tony Spawforth [isbn 978-0500051429]. It should probably have been titled Complete Collonaded Greek Temples, but you can't win them all. It's an excellent tome that covers the (ancient) political history of temple building, methods of construction, uses for various parts of the temple, and the context within the culture. All this before the meat of the book, a survey of over 100 cities and their collonaded temples. Some entries are bare bones, some more substantial, but the impression is given that the shorter entries are due to lack of information, not editorial book-shortening.

All this is heavily illustrated, of all types. Photos of current states of decay, illustrations of what it may have looked like, many temple floorplans, closeups of architectural and sculptural detail, and artifacts. I call it a coffeetable encyclopedia. More information than a standard coffetable book, more pictures than an encyclopedia.

In closing I'll share the quote used to open the book:

"Thus there is a certain bloom of newness in each building and an appearance of being untouched by the wear of time. It is as if some ever-flowing life and unageing spirit had been infused into the creation of these works."
~Plutarch, Life of Perikles, c. AD 100

[drekfletch]

Do you really need a large building if you are not going to be using most of it as a store house? Is a large building shaped like the Parthenon the best shape for a community building? Or would a modern building be better for the community part with a smaller ancient style temple for a statue and offerings work?

Part of the purpose of the temple was to be impressive and imposing. Making it smaller than the community center would be counterproductive. Ideally speaking, the community center wouldn't be part of the sanctuary. Which is a much better solution than I had earlier. The community center and parking would be adjacent to (or nearby) the sanctuary, not part of it. That would leave the temple to function solely as shrine/treasury.