Replies

If the Temple building wasn't important to Jesus, why did He defend it by kicking out the moneychangers? Places are important. There ARE such things as 'sacred places.' And the sense of history one gets when going into a place like the Church of the Nativity is irreplaceable. It is worth the price of a few fleeting lives -- it is the symbol of many MANY lives of faith dedicated to preserving our religious history. That some people undervalue it says more about our disposable society and its lack of values than the value of the place and the building.

I think the difference is that the Temple of Jesus' day WAS the official temple that God had allowed the Israelites to build for him. The Church of the Nativity has no such biblical endorsement nor pedigree. While I respect the symbolism it provides for many, the same symbolism could be attached to a manger scene I erect in my front yard. There really isn't any difference. I wouldn't classify placing a building in its proper context(as compared to the people, souls, relationships, and connection to God that make up the real church, which cannot be defined by a building or location, "For where two or three are gathered together in my name...") as a symptom of a disposable society, but simply a recognition of the true nature of Christianity. The souls in and around the Bethlehem building are far more important than the building(though certainly issues of respect/blasphemy towards the Lord must be considered. I wouldn't want to be a person who invaded and used a church building as a tool for sinful gain/acts.)