3 ms·

But they would; temples aren't destroyed unless there's a religious revolution, if the religion stops they become heritage sites and the work remains. Like mode

But they would; temples aren't destroyed unless there's a religious revolution, if the religion stops they become heritage sites and the work remains. Like modern day churches and cathedrals being repurposed as upmarket housing.

hinkley 2y ago
Aren’t a bunch of Japanese temples already heritage sites? The big problem with these temples is not religion it’s deforestation. The spine is made of old growth timber. So some of these temples survived over a thousand years until the central pillars were deemed unsound and needed to be replaced. Problem is that the new pillars are estimated to need replacement again in 400 years. They are made of less sturdy stuff.
onlypassingthru 2y ago
My impression is that Japan's temples are regularly destroyed. They're giant wooden structures with zero fire suppression and basically tinder boxes just waiting for a spark. Lo and behold, the Great ____ Earthquake/Fire or war occurs every few hundred years and there she goes.
- ensignavenger 2y ago
  In fact, many Japanese temples are designed to be torn down and rebuilt on a regular basis.
- tmtvl 2y ago
  As they say: fires and fights are the flowers of Edo.
runjake 2y ago
If you look up the history of the temples mentioned in the article, they were more often destroyed by non-religious conflicts, fires, and earthquakes.
- astrobe_ 2y ago
  Yes. I was surprised to see the castle of Hiroshima was still there. It was obviously rebuilt. Also AFAIK most of these constructions are made of wood, which also mean they need to be rebuilt over time. I think I also remember it is even part of the Buddhist tradition (at least for temples), a way to emphasis the impermanence of things. See for instance this long but fascinating video on one of the most famous temple of Kyoto: [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAeN7TdGq4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAeN7TdGq4o Found another reference, but for a shrine: [2] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-japanese-shrine-has-been-torn-down-and-rebuilt-every-20-years-for-the-past-millennium-575558/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-japanese-shri...
brendoelfrendo 2y ago
Ise Jingu in Japan is perhaps the marquee exception, ritually torn down and rebuilt every 20 years in a tradition at least 1300 years old. I think it stands to reason that if ritual reconstruction and maintenance of temple facilities is part of the religious tradition, then temple builders will see regular work. We shouldn't assume that all of the world's faiths follow the tradition of building temples as permanent monuments of stone and gold.

hinkley 2y ago

Aren’t a bunch of Japanese temples already heritage sites? The big problem with these temples is not religion it’s deforestation. The spine is made of old growth timber. So some of these temples survived over a thousand years until the central pillars were deemed unsound and needed to be replaced. Problem is that the new pillars are estimated to need replacement again in 400 years. They are made of less sturdy stuff.

onlypassingthru 2y ago

My impression is that Japan's temples are regularly destroyed. They're giant wooden structures with zero fire suppression and basically tinder boxes just waiting for a spark. Lo and behold, the Great ____ Earthquake/Fire or war occurs every few hundred years and there she goes.

ensignavenger 2y ago
In fact, many Japanese temples are designed to be torn down and rebuilt on a regular basis.
tmtvl 2y ago
As they say: fires and fights are the flowers of Edo.

runjake 2y ago

If you look up the history of the temples mentioned in the article, they were more often destroyed by non-religious conflicts, fires, and earthquakes.

astrobe_ 2y ago
Yes. I was surprised to see the castle of Hiroshima was still there. It was obviously rebuilt. Also AFAIK most of these constructions are made of wood, which also mean they need to be rebuilt over time. I think I also remember it is even part of the Buddhist tradition (at least for temples), a way to emphasis the impermanence of things. See for instance this long but fascinating video on one of the most famous temple of Kyoto: [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAeN7TdGq4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAeN7TdGq4o Found another reference, but for a shrine: [2] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-japanese-shrine-has-been-torn-down-and-rebuilt-every-20-years-for-the-past-millennium-575558/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-japanese-shri...

brendoelfrendo 2y ago

Ise Jingu in Japan is perhaps the marquee exception, ritually torn down and rebuilt every 20 years in a tradition at least 1300 years old. I think it stands to reason that if ritual reconstruction and maintenance of temple facilities is part of the religious tradition, then temple builders will see regular work. We shouldn't assume that all of the world's faiths follow the tradition of building temples as permanent monuments of stone and gold.