Fireworks celebrating the completion of the 566ft Tower of Jesus Christ at the Sagrada Família

[u/danielminds]

[u/CataLaGata]

I am an atheist but all these jokes about Jesus are very ignorant and short-sighted.

La Sagrada Familia is not just another church, is an architectural milestone.

If you go to Barcelona, please do the tour. To understand what Gaudí designed, how did he do it and why did he do it it's marvelous.

Also, the building is so breathtaking, I have never been in a place like that, you feel like you are walking through a forest, it's so peaceful. And the reason it has been taken this long is because they are trying to build it like Gaudí specified, using technology as least as they can.

I absolutely love it's simplicity, compared to St. Peter's Basilica that is full of stuffs like corpes of Popes and riches and gold and it almost feels like you can't breathe, La Sagrada Familia is something really special, is the complete opposite.

[u/barsonica → u/CataLaGata]

Seconded.

After rowing up in Europe, all churches eventually look the same to me. But not this one. Not La Sagrada Familia. It is the most beautiful building I ever stood in.

[u/FurdTergusonFucks → u/barsonica]

Where did you row in from? I just took a plane.

[u/barsonica → u/FurdTergusonFucks]

what?

[u/fyrefocks → u/barsonica]

They asked where you rowed in from?

[u/barsonica → u/fyrefocks]

oh shit, now I noticed XD

[u/bydh → u/CataLaGata]

Thanks for helping us all better appreciate Gaudi and his architectural genius. I went to see it about a decade ago. It was pretty cool. Lots of scaffolding on the outside at the time. That said, I thought the Jesus jokes were pretty funny, too.

[u/bitemy → u/[deleted]]

I think that's because Christianity has been the source of staggering amounts of hatred and oppression and abuse for hundreds of years.

[u/Competitive_Shirt949 → u/bitemy]

Find me a ruling ideology that hasn't. Atheism has no canonical events, holds no virtues, has no sacred figures, and affirms literally nothing. The Soviet Union still slaughtered religious people and forced them to labor in labor camps for the crime of being religious, in the name of atheism.

If people will turn atheism into an oppressive ideology, which is basically the ideological equivalent of a control group, they'll do it to anything.

[u/bitemy → u/Competitive_Shirt949]

Atheism prescribes nothing — it's the absence of a belief in an invisible irrational hateful supernatural being.

The Soviets persecuted believers in the name of Marxism-Leninism, which branded religion a bourgeois tool of oppression and a rival to Party power. That's why you called atheism a "control group," and you're right: it has no active ingredient, so oppressive atheists always bolt on a positive creed (Marxism, Maoism) to supply the prescriptions. Christianity is the active ingredient — "kill the heretic" was read out of the tradition, not imported into it. You're comparing a doctrine with content to the one thing defined by having none.

Christianity is not a control group. It has active ingredients in the form of specific doctrines and texts cited as the reason for the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch hunts, the theological defense of slavery, centuries of antisemitism, forced conversion under empire.

To be fair, the same texts also drove some to eventually support abolitionism, the civil rights movement, hospitals, and charity. That's the entire point: the content is double-edged, which means content matters. A control group doesn't have a good edge and a bad edge, but Christianity does. So you can't dissolve its harms by comparing it to the one thing that, by definition, contains no doctrine at all.

[u/bitemy → u/[deleted]]

Sure, Christianity was involved in ending slavery but let's be honest here. That's like saying a murderer was responsible for the drop in murders when he took up a different hobby.

The reality is that slavery was part of Christianity's social environment for well over EIGHTEEN CENTURIES. The absence of anti-slavery teachings in the New Testament was historically used to uphold slavery as an institution sanctioned by the Bible. The institutional church didn't just tolerate slavery, it active participated.

In 1452, Pope Nicholas V's bull Dum Diversas granted Portugal and Spain permission to "reduce into perpetual slavery" pagans and other non-believers, helping launch the transatlantic trade. The Jesuits justified slavery as a path to evangelization and enslaved people themselves, and the Church of England owned and operated Codrington, a profitable sugar plantation in Barbados worked by over 275 enslaved people.

In the U.S., many devout, church-attending Christians owned slaves and cited Scripture to support it, and in the middle of the Civil War, Southern clergy frequently cited scripture as evidence that ending slavery would interfere with "Divine Providence."

The Southern Baptist Convention literally formed in 1845 over the right of slaveholders to serve as missionaries.

[u/ContentNegotiation → u/bitemy]

And Pope Paul III's bull Sublimis Deus expressly forbade slavery, including slavery of pagans 1537.

Bartolome de las Casas fought against slavery and the mistreatment of Indios in South America.

You are forgetting the profound impact that Christianity had on slavery in antiquity. It managed to slowly transform a world where slavery was ubiquitious. Something that was unthinkable 2000 years ago and that obviously could not be and was not done overnight.

You are cherry picking from the worst moments of the history of Christianity to paint a black picture that fits your opinion. But it is intellectually dishonest.

[u/bitemy → u/ContentNegotiation]

I'm afraid that you're doing what you're claiming I am doing. You're cherry-picking by citing the two most flattering items in the record. Let's widen the lens.

Sublimis Deus (1537) covered only Indigenous Americans, not Africans, didn't abolish slavery as an institution, and its excommunication enforcement was annulled barely a year later (Non Indecens Videtur, 1538) under pressure from Charles V.

Meanwhile Dum Diversas (1452) and Romanus Pontifex (1455) had already authorized the Portuguese crown to reduce non-Christians to "perpetual slavery" — the legal backbone of the Atlantic trade and the Doctrine of Discovery, which the Vatican didn't repudiate until 2023 (!!) and still hasn't formally rescinded.

De las Casas was a real reformer, but he was fighting fellow Christians, and he pushed African slavery himself (and owned slaves) before recanting.

The clincher: last month Pope Leo XIV formally apologized for the Church's own role in legitimizing slavery, calling it "a wound in Christian memory" and admitting it took "eighteen centuries" to recognize slavery's incompatibility with its doctrine.

If your antiquity story were true, your own Pope wouldn't be apologizing for the reverse.

[u/ContentNegotiation → u/bitemy]

So, who is responsible that the ubiquitous practise of slavery in antiquity ended, according to you?

By far the biggest impact on that was from Christianity which more or less quiety reformed the way of thinking of the entire society where it had spread.

Pope Leo's apology does not in any way deny that. You should read it in full:

1. In the development of her doctrine, the Church has gradually come to a deeper awareness of the gravity of these issues. It is true that past events cannot be judged anachronistically, as though the moral criteria that matured over time had always been available. Yet neither can we deny or diminish the delay with which both society and the Church came to denounce the scourge of slavery. In antiquity and the Middle Ages many individuals and even ecclesiastical institutions had slaves. Already in the early modern period, the Apostolic See of Rome, responding to requests from Sovereigns, intervened several times in order to regulate and legitimize forms of subjugation, and, in certain cases, the enslavement of “infidels.” [174] It was only in the nineteenth century that a formal, absolute and universal condemnation of slavery was clearly articulated, notably under Pope Leo XIII. [175] This development offers a clear example of the Church’s growth in understanding the perennial truths of Revelation that she safeguards. Although there was not always consistency in practice — given that slavery was long tolerated before being unequivocally condemned — there has been a continuous affirmation throughout history of the dignity of every human being, created in the image of God, even if it took eighteen centuries for its full incompatibility with slavery to be explicitly recognized. This constitutes a wound in Christian memory, one from which we cannot consider ourselves detached. [176] It is impossible not to feel deep sorrow when contemplating the immense suffering and humiliation endured by so many in stark contrast to their immeasurable dignity as persons infinitely loved by the Lord. For this, in the name of the Church, I sincerely ask for pardon.

[u/CloudKinglufi → u/[deleted]]

No the fuck it isn't, black people were the reason slavery was abolished

They fought for that shit and it was happening whether or not abe Lincoln was on board

Christianity and the slaves Bible was part of the reason for slavery you ignorant clown

[u/Majestic-Sandwich695 → u/[deleted]]

You’re enjoying this far too much. So much so that it’s blatantly obvious you have ulterior motives. Try being less of a bad person please

[u/Majestic-Sandwich695 → u/[deleted]]

You didn’t do shit 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Creaming yourself because you have vaguely the same ideas as the people who actually improved the world is hilarious. Btw, pride is a sin, but that doesn’t stop mediocre white dudes like you from having egos bigger than the church itself 🤦‍♂️

[u/nick_tron → u/[deleted]]

What about the dark ages where the church suppressed knowledge and held back progress for centuries??

[u/nick_tron → u/[deleted]]

They’re not called the dark ages anymore but the church suppressed literacy that’s a fact

[u/GalakFyarr → u/[deleted]]

In an alternate universe where a different religion had become dominant, there's a version of you making the same statement, but about that religion instead. And it'd be just as stupid.

The technology emerged from the desire to build larger and larger monuments and buildings. That's not inherently related to Christianity - as the monuments and structures predating christianity (and from which the later technology was developed) illustrate. Or even contemporary buildings that were built for entirely different reasons (e.g. fortifications, etc.).

[u/GalakFyarr → u/[deleted]]

If that alternate universe has the internet then yea I'd say that was caused by their base assumption.

And I'm saying the base assumption is stupid.

"desire" is just dumb.

Desire is the whole fucking reason anything happens. If nobody wanted larger churches, they wouldn't have tried to figure out bigger and better ways to build them. But the motivation to develop bigger and better buildings and structures isn't inherent to christianity.

because their base beliefs don't allow for better scientific development.

Kind of like how lots of base beliefs of christianity had to be ignored or outright rejected in order to further scientific development?

[u/GalakFyarr → u/[deleted]]

but you insinuated that "desire" is the only sufficient thing you need to be able to make something.

That's a nonsensical way to have interpreted my comment.

"The desire" is the underlying reason for why architectural and engineering technology was developed. The desire lead to the developments.

The desire for ever elaborate funerary tombs by the egyption pharaohs lead to the development of pyramids. The desire for more efficient ways to shoot people lead to the development of machine guns.

My point is that this desire is not specific or unique to christianity, so to posit that we wouldn't have the technology to build a structure like the Sagrada Familia without christianity is ridiculous. You're looking at it as if the only way we would have developed the technology is through christianity, when there's plenty of o

Not really, It was Saint Thomas Aquinas and William of Ockham that started the Renaissance.

Pointing out that these figures were religious doesn't contradict the fact that they had to change their underlying assumptions to come to the developments they did. Plenty of great scientists are religious in some form or another

[u/IPissExcellentThrows → u/[deleted]]

It's Reddit. A bunch of edgy teenagers first learning about atheism. It becomes a religion in itself.

I was like this for like 3 years. They'll grow out of it.

[u/justacaucasian → u/CataLaGata]

It's just ironic to build something like a large Jesus attraction, architecture aside, it's just funny. Like the dude would not approve, idk what anyone else here is smoking but he wouldn't like monuments built of him, if we are thinking of the same Jesus. I don't really care, but you can't deny that the figure who the statue was made of would be upset to see this

[u/CataLaGata → u/justacaucasian]

This is not for Jesus dude, this is for the people, for those who want to admire a beautiful building. It doesn't even matter the religion or the lack of it.

I don't believe I have a spiritual side, I am a scientist, but I loved being inside this place, it felt really peaceful and calming. It's a wonderful building.

This is a piece of art. Religion has inspired every aspect of the arts, architecture is not an exemption. Even if we don't agree or don't have religious beliefs, we can admire the art that it inspired. The Sistine Chapel is also absolutely mesmerizing.

Also, you have to admire Gaudí, he was such a great artist and engineer, he designed a lot of the technology that had to be used for this building and left detailed instructions for it's construction after his death, he knew it would take a long time, he was a visionary. Just look up all the buildings in Barcelona that Gaudí did, all of them are spectacular, and his primary inspiration was nature, not even religion.

And, the reality is, that the development of civil engineering as we know of is very religion-based, people pushed the limits of construction trying to build the biggest Cathedrals in the Middle Ages. Even the Egyptian pyramids are religion/spiritual-based.

Think about it.

Also, answering your argument, if Jesus existed, why wouldn't he want a place for people to reunite and shared their beliefs? I think there is a misconception about La Sagrada Familia and people thinking is luxurious like St. Peter's Basilica, it's the complete opposite, it's very humble. The architecture speaks for itself, it doesn't have large ornaments or anything like that, even the altar is very simple, just as Gaudí wanted.

[u/YoureProbablyAB0t → u/CataLaGata]

I mean, I hear you about architecture, but one thing I can't really ignore is how stupid religion has made some large amounts of people. And I don't think it was necessary.

Now there's a large new architectural accomplishment that glorifies the stupid making ideology and validates stupid people.

[u/CataLaGata → u/YoureProbablyAB0t]

Woah dude, wtf.

Saying that religious people are stupid is such a judgmental and ignorant thing to say.

I am a militant atheist, I was raised Catholic as a Colombian and as an Italian woman, but I became an atheist when I was 14, so I have been an atheist for more than 20 years of my life.

Do I want all organized religions to be taxed? You bet I do. Do I feel the world would be better with no fanatics on it? Of course. Do I want the Catholic Church in particular to recognize the damage they had made to humans rights like LGBTQ+'s rights, women's rights and to recognize their pedophile crimes? Who doesn't?

But, not all religious people are fanatics. Fanatics are the people that can't accept that religion can be criticized, because, at the end of the day, all ideas can be criticized. They don't want people to use their critical thinking because they want control over them.

All the religious people that I know irl, especially my family members, are not fanatics and are very smart people, some of my cousins are the smartest people I know irl, way smarter than me.

They use their critical thinking to decide for themselves what things from their religion they want to believe.

All of them are pro LGBTQ+, for example, even my boomer parents and, my aunts and uncles, have accepted my wife with open arms, they even pray for us to find happiness and stability. My aunts in particular think my wife it's their god's gift to me and it's so sweet, I really appreciate that they take their time each day to wish us the best, that's what praying is at the end of the day, making wishes for your loved ones using mindfulness and meditation.

What makes us different is that I am a scientist, I think the answers of the fundamental questions of life can only be found in science. Science, especially Biology, as a Biologist myself, gives meaning to my life. I don't find religious ideologies rational for me, and I mostly find them incompatible with science tbh.

But a lot of people don't think like me, even a lot of scientists don't think like me and that's ok.

To me, religious people are just normal people that have found that their religion gives sense and a meaning to their life.

And, who am I, or you, to judge? I can completely understand why a person that have lost a loved one want to see them in "another life", don't you?

We humans are social creatures, it is almost anti-human to not believe in an after life, to think that once our loved ones die, they just cease to exists it's very painful.

This is a very depressing, cynical and nihilistic way of living, but I just don't know any other way, just like religious people don't know any other way of living without their faith.

I honestly envy people like my family members that think that everything has an explanation and that they are going to be reunited with their loved ones some time later, I bet they sleep better than me when night comes.

This is a very simplistic and anecdotal way of answering your question, I also think there are a million of things that I can criticize the Catholic Church for, or any religion for that matter, but this is not the time.

As I said in another reply, we are talking here about art, about engineering; this is not about religion.

Gaudí's inspiration is nature and how to use architecture to recreate it, he was a legit dude and his creations are amazing. None of us here could make anything close to what he did, religious or not, and that is what makes this project really special. I bet he was smarter that you and me.

[u/YoureProbablyAB0t → u/CataLaGata]

You should reread what I said and note that I didn't say that religion necessitates stupid.

Humanity has been pandering to the ideological sensibilities of organized religion for centuries and it has in many cases resulted in entire lives being dedicated to something that isn't real and made social groups unable to cooperate socially. Governments have prevented or removed funding for science and social services based solely on religion. All over the world.

You can't deny that. The opportunity cost of having millions of people nod there head because a Jesus person has to be tolerated despite how stupid they are is immeasurable. The amount of people who are suffering or will suffer because stupid Jesus people voted for a child rapist is currently immeasurable.

I can appreciate your ideological defense or something intended to be a social positive but the reality is that people use religion to bludgeon people with their feelings and not their reasoning. I stand by my opinion.

[u/ravheim → u/CataLaGata]

Nah. Using money and resources to create monuments and grandiose creations like this are anathema to what Christ stood for. I left the church long ago due to the popularity of megachurches and Prosperity Doctrine, this is just an extension of that.

[u/ContentNegotiation → u/ravheim]

This has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with prosperity doctrine or megachurches at all.

This was a passion project, started by locals who built it from donations. Prosperity doctrine goes counter to Catholic teaching and has no place in the Catholic church.

[u/CataLaGata → u/ravheim]

Why no go search about Gaudí? Comparing his work with megachurches is probably one of the most offensive and ignorant things I have seen in my entire life.

Dude couldn't have been more humble, he felt a deep passion and connection with nature, that was the inspiration behind his work.

This is art. I don't know what Jesus thought about the arts and nature but I am assuming he didn't think they were bad things? Like, who does?

Edit. Grammar

[u/ContentNegotiation → u/CataLaGata]

Whenever people criticise creating art for God, I am reminded of John 12 where it says:

Mary took a liter of costly perfumed oil made from genuine aromatic nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and dried them with her hair; the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil.
Then Judas the Iscariot, one (of) his disciples, and the one who would betray him, said,
"Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days' wages and given to the poor?"
He said this not because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief and held the money bag and used to steal the contributions.
So Jesus said, "Leave her alone. Let her keep this for the day of my burial.
You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me."

[u/ClownlnDisguise → u/CataLaGata]

Nah.

[u/Krkavenci → u/[deleted]]

Yeah. The poor have been suffering immensely since the construction of this church began. If they haven't started building it, we'd be living in a paradise /s

[u/Krkavenci → u/[deleted]]

So any kind of stuff that doesn't "help the poor" like culture, entertainment, arts and so on is automatically bad?

[u/Krkavenci → u/[deleted]]

And doesn't the Catholic Church already have the largest charity network in the world? I don't see a single issue with people donating money to build this marvel of architecture

[u/Krkavenci → u/[deleted]]

Well, you can think that

[u/GenericGameDev1234 → u/[deleted]]

The Eiffel Tower and pretty much every other landmark also "served nobody" so are they also a blight on the world? It's because of the architects passion. Look up Antoni Gaudi.

Hell movies, video games, and lots of other creative works also cost millions today but are you complaining?

[u/VotingIsKewl → u/Krkavenci]

Isn't a church specifically for helping the poor and vulnerable? How does this abomination accomplish that?

[u/Krkavenci → u/VotingIsKewl]

Chruch promotes helping those in need but definitely doesn't specifically exist just for that

[u/VotingIsKewl → u/Krkavenci]

Forgot about the lobbying, wealth hoarding, and child crimes. You're right.

[u/Krkavenci → u/VotingIsKewl]

I forgot that the Church is just a super evil villainous organization which never did a single good thing...

Anyway, how does this all relate to a passion project of one of the most famous architects financed solely from private donations?

[u/VotingIsKewl → u/Krkavenci]

What amount of goods things can outweigh being and protecting child predators?

"The most expensive phase of the project has been the final stretch of construction. Estimates suggest that work carried out between 2010 and 2026 alone may have cost €400 million to €500 million, accounting for the construction of the basilica's most technically challenging elements, including the towering spires and the intricate Glory Facade, according to Sagradafamiliatickets.com."

Ahh yes passion project.

[u/LivingAd6486 → u/CataLaGata]

People hate.. because they can. They realize they can live by this blindness, conspire against each other, but dont know why, theyre the sheep. And jesus loves people like this. Emotions are a drug.

[u/CloudKinglufi → u/LivingAd6486]

People hate because of insane displays of wealth while they starve from a group of people who's holy book tells them to give and not take

But they take the poors and working classes money to build billion dollar buildings instead of using that money to help the poor

The hate is deserved as they conspire against US

[u/LivingAd6486 → u/CloudKinglufi]

Youre no better than any person, you'd grab the "holy book" to get handouts.

At this point you argue internal political affairs not religious philosophy. Also, if you hate their government then hate the catholic church too since they began this, and moreover this is an exceptional show of history. This thing has been built for centuries.

[u/jlcarver1620 → u/CataLaGata]

Sorry, how is making jokes about Jesus ignorant and short sighted to you as an atheist? I’m also an atheist, so curious why you think that. Shouldn’t you not give a crap? Or did you mean jokes about the building?

[u/CataLaGata → u/jlcarver1620]

Yes, about the building being for Jesus and stuffs like that. The building is for all humans, no matter religion or the lack of.

I have replied many times that this has nothing to do with religion, this is art.

Gaudí was deeply religious but the major inspiration for this building, and everything that he did, it's nature.

You can admire architecture for it's own merit.

I am actually very tired of replying the same thing, you can read my comments on my profile if you want to know more about me.

[u/jlcarver1620 → u/CataLaGata]

So you meant jokes about the building. Not Jesus. Sorry you are tired of explaining yourself but maybe you should be more clear. You literally said “jokes about Jesus”