Churches Shouldn't Spend So Much Money on Buildings

My opponent seems to believe that since Church A overbuilt and spent beyond its means that beauty in a Church is wrong. Additionally he notes that Church B can continue to pay its bills. However he notes that the majority of the parishioners are old original members of the church. Is it possible that young people are not attracted to a drab building that has no draw for them.A church is supposed to be a place where you can feel the transcendence of God. A place where you understand that the offerings of beauty of the parishioners to God helps them to envision and desire the hereafter.My opponent claims that the early Christians only met in Church houses, however we know that the Apostles themselves worshipped in the temple:Now Peter and John were going up to the temple at the ninth hour, the hour of prayer. [1] - So yes Peter did worship in something like a Cathedral.Additionally my opponent rightly states that while Christianity was officially illegal in the Roman empire that the gathering places were generally church homes. However if we look at the oldest know Church House we can see that the walls were painted with frescoes. [2] And that, as per my argument in the previous round, they were instructive in that they showed events and parables from the bible like the Good Shepherd, Peter and Jesus walking on the water, the Samaritan woman by the Well.When you hold a special party for your family and friends you put out your good tablecloth and plates. You clean the house up, maybe wash the windows, vacuum, maybe buy party hats or candles. You do this because you want to show your family and friends how much they mean to you. You want the place to warm and welcoming. You want your home to be a place they want to come to and a place where they feel happy. Could you not have made them a better meal if you spent that time cooking instead? Could you not have bought a nicer piece of meat? Sure, but something intangible would have been lost.Now you wish to do that when God is present in His house, and at His meal. My opponent brusquely ignores that it is a central tenant of the Catholic and Orthodox religions that God is physically present in the Eucharist. Orthodox and Catholics believe that in the Eucharist the bread and wine are objectively changed and become in a real sense theBody and Blood of Christ; and that after consecration they are no longer bread and wine: the consecrated elements retain the appearance and attributes of bread and wine but really are the body and blood of Christ. [3]This interpretation is shown to be true from the bible.In the Gospel of John Jesus says, "I am the bread of life. “Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. “This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh." [4]And when the Jews began to grumble and argue he told them more bluntly:Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink." [4]And when many of his disciples left over this he did not tell them come back, I'm speaking metaphorically he let them go and then raised the stakes again with the remaining apostles.So Jesus said to the twelve, “You do not want to go away also, do you?” Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life. And that is that. Jesus did not explain to them the meaning any further until the last supper when he said:And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. [5]And this exact spot is the only time that Jesus mentions the New Covenant. Under the Old Covenant (which is a prefigurement of the New) the Jews had to eat the sacrifice. Here Christians have been shown how to eat the sacrifice.Now you may argue that I've taken this all out of context, let's see what the Church fathers believed:The Didache: [6]And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but such as have been baptized into the name of the Lord, for of a truth the Lord hath said concerning this, Give not that which is holy unto dogs. If it is only symbolic it cannot be holy.St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.):[6]Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery…They [i.e. the Gnostics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again.St. Justin the Martyr (c. 100 - 165 A.D.): [6]For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, AND BY THE CHANGE OF WHICH our blood and flesh is nourished, IS BOTH THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD OF THAT INCARNATED JESUS.And so on and so forth. If anything my opponent is blinded by his protestant viewpoint. I have clearly shown that authentic Christianity - that which is in line with the early Church - proclaimed Christ to be fully present in the Eucharist. Additionally, my opponent agreed that this was acceptable in the Jewish Temple where God physically resided.The degree of beauty in the Church should reflect the size and prosperity of the parish. Parishioners who spend a great deal on beautifying their homes, but not their Church should consider their priorities. And no it isn't about the stained glass, etc. It is about giving glory to God in EVERY way.[1] http://biblehub.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://biblehub.com...[5] http://biblehub.com... [6] http://www.therealpresence.org...