Tallest cross in the western hemisphere to be in Rogers?

[Julles]

Hate to burst your fragile bubble here but there are PLENTY of christians who do drugs and commit crimes who just don't get caught because they aren't in a minority that is targeted for persecution or for some other reason. I recall a certain leader of a certain evangelical church who was caught buying METH from his GAY PROSTITUTE! I almost died when I heard that because it is just too perfect. Christians who think of themselves as being 'above' the average citizen in their amount of piety/judgement/goodwill/avoidance of bad things are not any different than anyone else. If they don't get caught up in crime as much as others its simply because they spend a majority of their time avoiding such things like the plague in fear that they will (because god knows will power to not do such things isn't a part of the equation). I would be very interested to know how many christians really never do anything illegal or immoral (at least in comparison with the 'average' joe). Funny how nobody says a word around here when Ronnie Floyd purchases a multi-million dollar home in Clear Creek while his congregation is taking out mortgages to pay for their contributions to his church...Oh if only we could all just build an ivory tower and sit in it, just watching those poor souls below us march themselves away into damnation!

[jdevers]

I think the problem here is simply definition. If by Christian you mean the people that actually abide by what is taught and lead a Christ-like life, then yea they almost certainly DO contribute to a stable and safe environment, but you also said that 75% of the population is Christian by that number I think you are instead calling everyone who goes to a Christian church or puts down 'Christian' on any census/poll type thing. The overwhelming majority of those people are NOT Christian by the first definition and many DO hang out at bars etc...otherwise how do you think that all the bars and restaurants that serve alcohol in this "mostly Christian" area stay stay afloat? It's not just the other 25%.

I would hazard to guess that most "Christian" cities in the US have noticeably more crime than atheist/agnostic/whatever cities in western Europe.

Also, you might want to take a look at the prison system and see how many cross tattoos are sported ALL OVER most of the inmates. You say that having crosses tattooed on oneself doesn't make one Christian, and to that I respond that having a 200 foot tall cross in front of a building doesn't inherently make it more holy.

[masons_dad1]

The difference is that MI (and to a lesser extent IL) are NOT known for religious extremes as the South is. Here is an example. If I have a junky yard with a bunch of broken down cars in it, it would be stereotypical "Southern lawn" especially Ozark area. On the other hand, if my brother in New Jersey does the same thing, his neighborhood doesn't like it much, but no one says "yea, that is typical New Jersey." Quite the opposite, if people knew he was from Arkansas they would say "well, I guess he brought a little bit of home with him" and do what they could to get "the hick" convicted.

[cocothief]

There is some validity to this being a southern thing.

ONLY IN THE SOUTH would there be people so insecure in what people from other regions think about the people residing here that something as beneign (although somewhat quirky) as a giant cross would cause them to launch into hystrionics about what ONE giant cross says about our area to newcomers.

Drive all over the midwest and you will find large roadside attractions, like Paul Bunyan statues, giant balls of twine, etc. They are oddities. But people stop to see them.

All a giant cross says to me is that there is a big church located on the property. Thats it.

Extrapolating out that somehow a giant cross might actually DISCOURAGE people from more cosmopolitan areas from relocating here is an enormous stretch IMO.

I really think SEVERAL of you are thinking way too much about this, and its more about your distrust or disdain for Christianity than anything else.

A mosque, an Asian welcome center with a giant Buddah would likely be something you'd support. Christian symbols? Oh dear, no!!!!

Edit: HOORAY. Mason's Dad and I found yet another topic on which we agree! Unity!

[mineola]

I don't mean to derail the fun, but while everyone is discussing the topic of towering religious symbols, I have a question for anyone that might know the answer. Many moons ago, a prof at the UoA remarked in class that the big statute of Jesus in Eureka actually had feet but the builders had to bury them. The reason was that, according to the prof, the height with the feet would have required placing a blinking red light on the head. While the image elicited a big laugh from the class, I was never sure if the prof was just joking or it was actually true. Has anyone heard that story before or know of its veracity? Thx in advance.

[KJW]

I don't mean to derail the fun, but while everyone is discussing the topic of towering religious symbols, I have a question for anyone that might know the answer. Many moons ago, a prof at the UoA remarked in class that the big statute of Jesus in Eureka actually had feet but the builders had to bury them. The reason was that, according to the prof, the height with the feet would have required placing a blinking red light on the head. While the image elicited a big laugh from the class, I was never sure if the prof was just joking or it was actually true. Has anyone heard that story before or know of its veracity? Thx in advance.

[mineola]

Don't know the answer to that, but I wonder if the citizens of Rio de Janeiro and the nation of Brazil are ashamed that their statue of Christ the Redeemer got on the "7 modern marvels of the world" list?

[CellarDoor135]

Don't know the answer to that, but I wonder if the citizens of Rio de Janeiro and the nation of Brazil are ashamed that their statue of Christ the Redeemer got on the "7 modern marvels of the world" list?

[KJW]

I wouldn't dare compare the Christ of the Redeemer in Rio to the 200 foot cross planned for Rogers, or even the Christ of the Ozarks in ES. The Redeemer is an artistic acheivment and aesthetically pleasing. The Christ of the Ozarks is campy and kitsch.

[masons_dad1]

I wouldn't dare compare the Christ of the Redeemer in Rio to the 200 foot cross planned for Rogers, or even the Christ of the Ozarks in ES. The Redeemer is an artistic acheivment and aesthetically pleasing. The Christ of the Ozarks is campy and kitsch.

[jdevers]

Don't know the answer to that, but I wonder if the citizens of Rio de Janeiro and the nation of Brazil are ashamed that their statue of Christ the Redeemer got on the "7 modern marvels of the world" list?

[thewizard16]

I agree. I don't care for the giant crosses, and if I were on a planning board, I would definitely consider an argument against it from that perspective. However, if the environment is right, the cross can be a monument, and I wouldn't consider it as ridiculous. The religious issues aside (I don't feel that any anti-this or anti-that has any place on this forum, and for the most part people here have tried to be civil. It's hard to sit and watch your beliefs and what you hold dear be mocked or insulted, and it brings out the worst in people, therefore we really shouldn't be mocking or insulting ANYONE's religion or beliefs on here, regardless of our personal views on it), I think the tall cross could be done in a manner that isn't silly. The cross(es) at Pinnacle Hills aren't a huge amount shorter than these (two stories, basically, right?), and they don't appear as huge as I'd originally expected them to be from the press releases about that... church. If the environment around the cross is right, it might not stick out as badly as many here are fearing, regardless of the 200ft. height. I don't notice some cell phone towers in certain valleys anymore, maybe this cross will be done more tastefully than described.

[hogwash]

My whole problem, it that its a peeing contest. You already have three 175 ft. tall crosses in town. Why do you need more? Who's next, at what point do you draw the line? If every Tom, Dick, and Harry decided they wanted to put up some 200 ft monument, Rogers skyline would be as ugly as all the development you see along 71B. The effect of having a huge beautiful cross is cheapened when you have another or another couple of them across town. That's probably why you rarely see these things in multiple locations within a town. Visitors won't see this as a great beacon, it will be see as a tacky gimmick.

[edensfall]

I agree with Hogwash. And it makes me sick, so what if im agnostic, i dont want to see this all over the place, Springdale already has a couple, and i can see them from my house in Tontitown. Its the same thing as putting up a 200ft billboard that says CHRIST. And imagine the money spent on that, not to mention leasing it to cellular companies, come on people, think of all the kids around here that could have a little more to eat that live in less fortunate households around here, instead of spending all that money on a stupid cross. I think ill erect a duplication of the three viking swords on the sea side cliffs of Norway, now wouldnt that be pretty?

[masons_dad1]

The arguments are just getting more ridiculous by the day. The "peeing contest" argument is plain stupid. You're saying a church shouldn't build a 200 ft Cross because another church in town already has a 175 ft Cross. I guess it would be okay if they wanted to build a 174 ft Cross to avoid getting involved in a "peeing contest". I mean noone goes into a "peeing contest" to lose do they? If it was a valid argument then it should be applied to EVERYTHING and NOT JUST CHRISTIAN symbolism. Using that same argument I don't think any new buildings should be even an inch taller than any other buildings in town or it's just a "peeing contest" and is just plain wrong.

Aside from a few people simply and civilly stating that they either like or dislike the idea of a 200 ft Cross all I see is a bunch of people bashing anyone or anything to do with Christianity. The only minor exception are the ones who said they like the "Christ the Redeemer" monument and certain churches as art, but not for their Christian symbolism. For them that statue may as well be a likeness of a pagan god or just an evolved homo sapien (depending on your faith or lack thereof). Well guess what... IT'S NOT!!! It's a likeness of JESUS CHRIST, the SON OF GOD and our SAVIOUR!!! AMEN!!! If you choose not to believe then just state whether you like or dislike the idea of a 200 ft Cross being built in Rogers and keep your Christian bashing comments to yourselves. This is an open forum for opinions, but not when those opinions are derogatory toward another person's faith or religious beliefs. And yes, derogatory comments toward Christian symbols, beliefs, Christian acts or even toward Christian leaders is the same thing as a derogatory comment toward all Christians. If you want to attack a Christian for what they do in their own personal life outside of the church and it's functions so be it, but DON'T attack their Christianity.

God bless each and every one of you. And yes that even goes for you gentle and kind atheists and agnostics out there.

[jdevers]

The arguments are just getting more ridiculous by the day. The "peeing contest" argument is plain stupid. You're saying a church shouldn't build a 200 ft Cross because another church in town already has a 175 ft Cross. I guess it would be okay if they wanted to build a 174 ft Cross to avoid getting involved in a "peeing contest". I mean noone goes into a "peeing contest" to lose do they? If it was a valid argument then it should be applied to EVERYTHING and NOT JUST CHRISTIAN symbolism. Using that same argument I don't think any new buildings should be even an inch taller than any other buildings in town or it's just a "peeing contest" and is just plain wrong.

[NWAboom]

The arguments are just getting more ridiculous by the day. The "peeing contest" argument is plain stupid. You're saying a church shouldn't build a 200 ft Cross because another church in town already has a 175 ft Cross. I guess it would be okay if they wanted to build a 174 ft Cross to avoid getting involved in a "peeing contest". I mean noone goes into a "peeing contest" to lose do they? If it was a valid argument then it should be applied to EVERYTHING and NOT JUST CHRISTIAN symbolism. Using that same argument I don't think any new buildings should be even an inch taller than any other buildings in town or it's just a "peeing contest" and is just plain wrong.

Aside from a few people simply and civilly stating that they either like or dislike the idea of a 200 ft Cross all I see is a bunch of people bashing anyone or anything to do with Christianity. The only minor exception are the ones who said they like the "Christ the Redeemer" monument and certain churches as art, but not for their Christian symbolism. For them that statue may as well be a likeness of a pagan god or just an evolved homo sapien (depending on your faith or lack thereof). Well guess what... IT'S NOT!!! It's a likeness of JESUS CHRIST, the SON OF GOD and our SAVIOUR!!! AMEN!!! If you choose not to believe then just state whether you like or dislike the idea of a 200 ft Cross being built in Rogers and keep your Christian bashing comments to yourselves. This is an open forum for opinions, but not when those opinions are derogatory toward another person's faith or religious beliefs. And yes, derogatory comments toward Christian symbols, beliefs, Christian acts or even toward Christian leaders is the same thing as a derogatory comment toward all Christians. If you want to attack a Christian for what they do in their own personal life outside of the church and it's functions so be it, but DON'T attack their Christianity.

God bless each and every one of you. And yes that even goes for you gentle and kind atheists and agnostics out there.

[masons_dad1]

I'm not sure how you are saying it isn't a competition of sorts. In the article they make a big deal about it being the largest in the western hemisphere. Now, if they had decided to build a big cross and the journalist happen to find out that it would end up being the largest in this half of the Earth and printed that as an aside, I would agree that there is a chance that they just wanted to build a cross. That isn't what is happening though, they very obviously pointed out the size of the cross and said it would be the largest. That is the very definition of a competition. Imagine if instead of a cross (I know what you are saying, but it IS a cross...that doesn't matter here, ultimately it is a structure and as such is comparable to any other structure) some place in town was building a new store and they decided to put in an 2200 ft guy wireless tower in the front of it as an advertisement and leased out space on it to TV and radio companies to pay for it. If they chose that height because it would be the tallest free standing communications tower on Earth and the first reporter to come their way after hearing about it asks and they talk all about how it will be something to see and will be the tallest in the world etc then they are obviously using the tower as advertising and to do that they aren't just building a big one, but the BIGGEST one...the ultimate version of a thing. They are competing, no way around it. Same thing in this case, the new cross is a competition.

Here is another question. Do you guys want our nice little metro area listed on pages like this??

Roadside America

or this

Photos of Big Things

or this

GodsArk

Personally, I would want my very slightly progressive and very beautiful part of the world to stay as far from that sort of thing as possible...

[masons_dad1]

Please don't ever speak on behalf of Christians again! You kind of people push my buttons. The idea of this cross is disgusting, if this is what you "people" are coming to these days then may God bless you!

[jdevers]

[quote name='masons_dad1' date='Aug 9 2007, 10:51 AM' post='836290'

As far as roadside attractions go I think (as for NWA) Springdale holds the prize in that category:

[peaceloveunderstanding]

I'll take it that you dislike the idea of a 200 ft Cross because you think it's disgusting. Thanks for your input!

Oh and God bless you too.

[andrewjensen]

This issue shouldn't be based on the merits of Christianity. The actions of churches and the actions of individual Christians are entirely distinct. You can't paint every Christian with a brush based on the actions of the institutions. That's like saying all Americans agree with Bush because we're Americans and he's our president.

Being agnostic/atheist is a perfectly legitimate thing to be, but the extreme actions of some guady churches shouldn't indict people who have just as much right to believe the opposite. Christians are defensive and there's no doubt some are self-righteous, but there are far too many who aren't to judge them by their worst examples.

And yes, those crosses and any like them are guady. I think we all know what Jesus would do with the $7 million or whatever they spent on those, and it wouldn't be build a giant picture of himself.

I also find it ironic to use a cross as a cell tower. Should a symbol presumably that holy be used not only to generate commerce, but to facilitate a lot of conversations that don't exactly fit into the 10 commandments?

[mineola]

Aside from a few people simply and civilly stating that they either like or dislike the idea of a 200 ft Cross all I see is a bunch of people bashing anyone or anything to do with Christianity. The only minor exception are the ones who said they like the "Christ the Redeemer" monument and certain churches as art, but not for their Christian symbolism. For them that statue may as well be a likeness of a pagan god or just an evolved homo sapien (depending on your faith or lack thereof). Well guess what... IT'S NOT!!! It's a likeness of JESUS CHRIST, the SON OF GOD and our SAVIOUR!!! AMEN!!! If you choose not to believe then just state whether you like or dislike the idea of a 200 ft Cross being built in Rogers and keep your Christian bashing comments to yourselves. This is an open forum for opinions, but not when those opinions are derogatory toward another person's faith or religious beliefs. And yes, derogatory comments toward Christian symbols, beliefs, Christian acts or even toward Christian leaders is the same thing as a derogatory comment toward all Christians. If you want to attack a Christian for what they do in their own personal life outside of the church and it's functions so be it, but DON'T attack their Christianity.

God bless each and every one of you. And yes that even goes for you gentle and kind atheists and agnostics out there.

[astrife]

The arguments are just getting more ridiculous by the day. The "peeing contest" argument is plain stupid. You're saying a church shouldn't build a 200 ft Cross because another church in town already has a 175 ft Cross. I guess it would be okay if they wanted to build a 174 ft Cross to avoid getting involved in a "peeing contest". I mean noone goes into a "peeing contest" to lose do they? If it was a valid argument then it should be applied to EVERYTHING and NOT JUST CHRISTIAN symbolism. Using that same argument I don't think any new buildings should be even an inch taller than any other buildings in town or it's just a "peeing contest" and is just plain wrong.

Aside from a few people simply and civilly stating that they either like or dislike the idea of a 200 ft Cross all I see is a bunch of people bashing anyone or anything to do with Christianity. The only minor exception are the ones who said they like the "Christ the Redeemer" monument and certain churches as art, but not for their Christian symbolism. For them that statue may as well be a likeness of a pagan god or just an evolved homo sapien (depending on your faith or lack thereof). Well guess what... IT'S NOT!!! It's a likeness of JESUS CHRIST, the SON OF GOD and our SAVIOUR!!! AMEN!!! If you choose not to believe then just state whether you like or dislike the idea of a 200 ft Cross being built in Rogers and keep your Christian bashing comments to yourselves. This is an open forum for opinions, but not when those opinions are derogatory toward another person's faith or religious beliefs. And yes, derogatory comments toward Christian symbols, beliefs, Christian acts or even toward Christian leaders is the same thing as a derogatory comment toward all Christians. If you want to attack a Christian for what they do in their own personal life outside of the church and it's functions so be it, but DON'T attack their Christianity.

God bless each and every one of you. And yes that even goes for you gentle and kind atheists and agnostics out there.

[Julles]

Julles (your ally in this thread) has made the most discrimatory statements by insinuating that Christian communities are superior to all others, and you are now attempting to make it look like Christians are the victim in this thread.

It is a guady religious symbol that I don't like. So what if I am an atheist, that is incidental. I don't like it, and I wish this church would find a better way to utilize its resources.