- Mobile site
- E-Newsletters
-
- News feed
- Find us on Twitter
@yorkpress
Follow us on Twitter
- Find us on Facebook
The Press, York
Like us on Facebook
Former pub reopens as a church (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
Former Fossway pub reopens as the Living Word Centre
8:12am Friday 14th September 2012 in News
By Mike Laycock, Chief reporter
James Topliss outside the formers Fossway pub which has now been converted into a church
A PUB which has stood empty and boarded up for several years has finally reopened – as a church.
The former Fossway pub in Huntington Road, York, is now the Living Word Centre, following a major refurbishment project.
The old public bar is now a lounge where children go to Sunday school during services, and the function room is a meeting room where the services are staged.
Upstairs, one former bedroom is an office for pastor James Topliss, while another is being turned into a seminar room where classes will be held in areas such as parenting and marriage enrichment.
Mr Topliss said there were also plans to open a community café, although this would require fresh planning permission from City of York Council .
He said it had cost a six-figure sum to buy the building and then carry out a major programme of repairs, with money donated and loaned both by church members in York and from similar churches across the country. Pupils at Queen Margaret’s School, Escrick , had also raised funds.
He said lead flashing had been stolen from the roor during the pub’s closure, allowing rainwater to come in, and roof repairs had been necessaryfirst.
Specialists had been employed for services such as plumbing and electricity, but members of the church had been involved in decorating the premises.
Mr Topliss said the church had about 45 members, from across York, including the Bell Farm estate and Huntington Road, with numbers rising, and about 150 people had come to a family barbecue held last weekend.
“We are a lively, charismatic church, committed to spreading the good news that Jesus Christ is alive and is still changing lives today,” he said.
“The church is made up of people of differing ages and backgrounds, but with one thing in common – a real relationship with God. It’s about being part of a family where there is genuine love, care and friendship.”
He said the church had a dedicated pastoral team of mature and experienced people, who were able to give practical, godly advice and instruction to help people in their lives as Christians.
Comments(43)
Blythespirit
says...
10:57am Fri 14 Sep 12
TONY THE TORCHE wrote:Even more so now I imagine!
The Bridge Hotel / Foss Way / Living Word. Call it what you want. It will still be full of nutters.
Happy Chappie
says...
11:03am Fri 14 Sep 12
10:08am Fri 14 Sep 12
The Bridge Hotel / Foss Way / Living Word. Call it what you want. It will still be full of nutters.
Tony Wonder what these people have done to you for you to be so ignorant about them?? I am not religious, nor am I a believer but would not ridicule them anonymously for having a harmless belief. Only one Nutter re your post on here as far as I can see.
lezyork1966
says...
11:05am Fri 14 Sep 12
if your so christian why dont you pop next door on a sunday and educate the staff about not working the sabbath, are you not supposed to stone them or something?
oh hang on, i forgot, you cherry pick which bits of the 'good book' to follow, leaving out the killing of children while calling other faiths barbaric.
should have made it a netto years ago...
Happy Chappie
says...
11:14am Fri 14 Sep 12
MarkyMarkMark
says...
11:21am Fri 14 Sep 12
Go Living Word.
Gary Gilmores Eyes
says...
11:51am Fri 14 Sep 12
So the completely lost and past saving in society who smell of prison and urine have been replaced with the deluded lost and past saving who smell of holy water.
I really don’t know who are worse at least with the drunks you knew there was some logic in them somewhere.
Richard Dawkins is my hero.
Just wait for the inevitable ‘Church robbed shock’ Press headline in the near future!
kalyn64
says...
11:57am Fri 14 Sep 12
God bless, Karen x
moy
says...
12:16pm Fri 14 Sep 12
Gary Gilmores Eyes
says...
12:18pm Fri 14 Sep 12
Don't be scared you may even enjoy it !!! :-D’
Far from scared – More concerned about the cover ups from the catholic and other religions of systemic failure to report and cover up/hide child abuse.
‘God bless, Karen x’’
Proof if needed that all these persons with a religious taint are deluded!
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GOD.
Please take onboard the PROVEN science of evolution.
It may just save you from wasting your life believing in something that does not exist and has been used for millennia to control the population/earn money and harm people.
lezyork1966
says...
12:25pm Fri 14 Sep 12
its corruption at even the basic level, if local mums had asked to use the plot as a meeting room/coffe shop etc it would have been not allowed, same if it was to be an athiest meeting place, but add the word christian and it gets done, why, because its mutual corrupt back slapping from other christians in power, no doubt at the council.
in some US states you cant hold a council job without being a christian.... how long till its that way here...
MarkyMarkMark
says...
12:39pm Fri 14 Sep 12
Try applying some scientific method and discipline to your own answer, please.
1. What has this got to do with the Roman Catholic Church and any other religions, and cover ups of child abuse? What relevance to argument please?
2. Where is the proof that all "people with a religious taint" are deluded anywhere in this article or Kaylyn64s response?
3. Sorry? Evolution has been proven? When and by whom? I think you'll find its still taught as "The Theory of Evolution". Key word - theory. It may seem to make sense of some of the facts, but it still doesn't address all of the data. And even if you choose to believe it, it doesn't adequately explain the day to day experience (=reality) of millions of people throughout the (modern, developed) world. Evolution, by its very nature, cannot be experienced by an individual.
This story isn't about some great religious/anti-relig
ious debate - its a story about a building being restored to a good state for the people who actually care enough about the locality to do something positive.
MarkyMarkMark
says...
12:39pm Fri 14 Sep 12
Try applying some scientific method and discipline to your own answer, please.
1. What has this got to do with the Roman Catholic Church and any other religions, and cover ups of child abuse? What relevance to argument please?
2. Where is the proof that all "people with a religious taint" are deluded anywhere in this article or Kaylyn64s response?
3. Sorry? Evolution has been proven? When and by whom? I think you'll find its still taught as "The Theory of Evolution". Key word - theory. It may seem to make sense of some of the facts, but it still doesn't address all of the data. And even if you choose to believe it, it doesn't adequately explain the day to day experience (=reality) of millions of people throughout the (modern, developed) world. Evolution, by its very nature, cannot be experienced by an individual.
This story isn't about some great religious/anti-relig
ious debate - its a story about a building being restored to a good state for the people who actually care enough about the locality to do something positive.
MarkyMarkMark
says...
1:21pm Fri 14 Sep 12
I know the debate and comment on here is usually pretty robust, but I think that's possibly libellous?
There is no "100% certain" argument to prove there is a God. There is also no 100% argument to prove there isn't a God either (in fact, you can never, ever 100% "prove" a negative).
If you want a debate based upon reason and logic, that's fine. But you've resorted to name calling and generalisations.
And this probably isn't the place for it either.
laughingoutloud
says...
1:43pm Fri 14 Sep 12
Kevin Turvey
says...
1:48pm Fri 14 Sep 12
more likely struck down by lightning from their so called God!
YorkPatrol
says...
2:04pm Fri 14 Sep 12
Kevin Turvey wrote:Of course there is a GOD, he’s about a million years old, lives in the sky defying all laws of gravity and has a long beard, he created this world with his feet and makes people out of bones, his son turns fish into water and wine into bread, I believe he actually invented bread – If you’re good when your dead you go GOD’s house in the sky where there are people with wings and everything…. Its mint
It’s only ‘possibly libellous’ if its not true.. more likely struck down by lightning from their so called God!
Jiffy
says...
3:15pm Fri 14 Sep 12
YorkPatrol wrote:Lol. I have Monty Python images in my head now - so Terry Gilliam was right all along.
Kevin Turvey wrote: It’s only ‘possibly libellous’ if its not true.. more likely struck down by lightning from their so called God!Of course there is a GOD, he’s about a million years old, lives in the sky defying all laws of gravity and has a long beard, he created this world with his feet and makes people out of bones, his son turns fish into water and wine into bread, I believe he actually invented bread – If you’re good when your dead you go GOD’s house in the sky where there are people with wings and everything…. Its mint
I would just also like to add that I can 100% prove that I am not a man - is that me proving a negative???
PKH
says...
5:12pm Fri 14 Sep 12
Gary Gilmores Eyes wrote:If you change the word day in the creation story and replace it with era, then the bible describes the order of creation/evolution and remember it was written over 4,000 years ago which is remarkable, and day/era could be down to translation over the years. Darwin who 'discovered' evolution became a Christian before he died, therefore he must have believed that God used evolution in creation.
‘kalyn64 says... 11:57am Fri 14 Sep 12
Don't be scared you may even enjoy it !!! :-D’
Far from scared – More concerned about the cover ups from the catholic and other religions of systemic failure to report and cover up/hide child abuse.
‘God bless, Karen x’’
Proof if needed that all these persons with a religious taint are deluded!
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GOD.
Please take onboard the PROVEN science of evolution.
It may just save you from wasting your life believing in something that does not exist and has been used for millennia to control the population/earn money and harm people.
PKH
says...
5:27pm Fri 14 Sep 12
has been used for millennia to control the population/earn money and harm people.
If you read the bible Jesus warned there would be false prophets as you are describing, and that the sheep would be separated from the goats ie that the church to further there own ends instead of living in love would eventually get their comeuppance.
PKH
says...
5:28pm Fri 14 Sep 12
yorkborn66
says...
11:53pm Fri 14 Sep 12
moy wrote:Totally agree with you . But looking at some of these comments , sometimes you cannot educate mince !
This is real news - a pub becoming a church, rather than the other way around. Why so negative? Would people rather have the crime and anti-social behaviour at the Fossway or a church trying to help local people?
bob the builder
says...
12:08am Sat 15 Sep 12
Magicman!
says...
3:17am Sat 15 Sep 12
As PKH has pointed out above, there was prophesied that a 'false religion', if you wish to call it that, would arise and dilute proper religion into a casserole of nonsense that just panders to what people want to hear ("oh you've had sex with your neighbours wife... well fondle these beads and say some repetitive prayers out of this book and you'll be fine"), and history will show the major turning point was during Roman times - figureheaded by the bloke we now have a statue of outside the Minster.... But as to what is 'false' and what is 'true' becomes hard to define, as believers of each religion will always say their own is true and this has led to many wars both past and present.
I'm not sure if this church on Huntington Road is in the right place, and I doubt it'll still be there in 10 years time (or if it, all the lead roof will have been nicked and the cables ripped out of the walls by some of the 'locals' in the area), but it gives some people a communal hub where they can meet over a common interest - and surely that is a good thing.
PinzaC55
says...
10:40am Sat 15 Sep 12
Oh no! "Double facepalm"
The Theory Of Gravity is "just a theory" too. Do you believe it?
A Scientific "Theory" is not the common version - a hunch - it is a way of explaining and uniting observed facts in such a way as to make sense of them. Next time you go into a hospital to be cured of the effects of a bacteria or virus you will be give drugs which have been improved based on a knowledge of how the bacteria EVOLVE.
rodney'sdog
says...
12:54pm Sat 15 Sep 12
PinzaC55
says...
8:15am Sun 16 Sep 12
eeoodares
says...
4:32pm Sun 16 Sep 12
New Mosque, new Church we just need an Hindu Temple and we will have most of the bases covered!
YorkShrimper
says...
11:30am Mon 17 Sep 12
PinzaC55 wrote:Surely this should be...."Touched by His noodly appendage"
"Oh My Flying Spaghetti Monster!"
PinzaC55
says...
4:16pm Mon 17 Sep 12
YorkShrimper wrote:Ramen Brother!
PinzaC55 wrote:Surely this should be...."Touched by His noodly appendage"
"Oh My Flying Spaghetti Monster!"
The Dasher
says...
7:53pm Mon 17 Sep 12
Lycett
says...
11:13pm Mon 17 Sep 12
Should you have been able to ask any eminent physicist of one hundred and fifty years ago - around Darwin's time - whether or not Newtonian physics explained the motion and movement of all matter of which man was aware, or could ever be aware of, he would have told you that it certainly did. These were, indeed, not just Theories but Laws of Motion.
We now know of course that they do not apply to sub-atomic particles - this is the realm of quantum mechanics - but it could very well be argued that neither is correct and that there is another explanation, a unifying theory, that explains the behaviour of both macroscopic and microscopic objects together. It does seem rather odd that, to stick with Newton, an apple in its entirely will obey Newton's laws whereas, without exception, each individual particle of the apple is obeying a different set of physics.
I am much more convinced by the evolutionary argument, however, to believe that any scientific theory is true and right and incontrovertible is not much better than not believing it in the first place. Besides that, evolution is only the second part of the question; the first half is still unanswered.
For all the work on evolution, there was some original spark of life, in some primordial soup, which combined particles that were not individually capable of life, or independent operation, into something that was, and it is from this that all evolution has since descended. Abiogenesis has not progressed beyond the hypothesis stage, never mind theories.
For this reason, I find that Creationism and Evolutionism are not necessarily arguments against each other; surely evolution happens after creation.
Gary Gilmores Eyes
says...
7:58am Tue 18 Sep 12
They are everywhere!
Just goes to prove the high level of mind control/brainwashing that has occurred has worked on the gullible!
BuckTarbrush
says...
8:44am Tue 18 Sep 12
...cherry picking...Darwin disproves God...child abuse...fantasy land...nutters...min
d control
You're only missing 'sky fairy' from the atheist play-book. From the above comments I can only see one set of closed minds spouting unproveable cliches. It takes a special kind of Freethinker to be so blinkered.
All the best to James and his community for putting words into action and tying to make York a better place.
MarkyMarkMark
says...
10:52am Tue 18 Sep 12
I couldn't have put it better.
@Pinza55,
Whilst something may remain a "theory", it doesn't stop it being a pretty good approximation of the way things work. (Basic scientific method is about trying to prove or disprove theories. For that we need observation as well as deduction.)
The vaccines and treatments given are usually developed based on a theory of how things ought to work, then tested (observer) for their action. You really wouldn't want a vaccine or treatment based purely on a theory...
I'm choosing to live based on my experience (tested) rather than just a theory of what might be/or not be.
@Jiffy,
I'm glad you can prove your gender conclusively, but remember that what you have proved (to satisfy your particular standard of proof) is that you are something else other than a male - presumably female. There are circumstances where even this is not clear - e.g. S.African female runner who had all physical characteristics of a female but was required to undergo DNA testing to prove it to the satisfaction of others!
PinzaC55
says...
2:39pm Tue 18 Sep 12
Lycett wrote:Lycett said "Should you have been able to ask any eminent physicist of one hundred and fifty years ago - around Darwin's time - whether or not Newtonian physics explained the motion and movement of all matter of which man was aware, or could ever be aware of, he would have told you that it certainly did. These were, indeed, not just Theories but Laws of Motion."
PinzaC55: Whilst you were absolutely correct in pointing out that the word 'theory' in scientific parlance implies a much more exact and definite concept than it does outside science, where anyone from Sherlock Holmes to Baldrick can come up with one, it is not correct for anyone to assume that a scientific theory is final and decided.
Should you have been able to ask any eminent physicist of one hundred and fifty years ago - around Darwin's time - whether or not Newtonian physics explained the motion and movement of all matter of which man was aware, or could ever be aware of, he would have told you that it certainly did. These were, indeed, not just Theories but Laws of Motion.
We now know of course that they do not apply to sub-atomic particles - this is the realm of quantum mechanics - but it could very well be argued that neither is correct and that there is another explanation, a unifying theory, that explains the behaviour of both macroscopic and microscopic objects together. It does seem rather odd that, to stick with Newton, an apple in its entirely will obey Newton's laws whereas, without exception, each individual particle of the apple is obeying a different set of physics.
I am much more convinced by the evolutionary argument, however, to believe that any scientific theory is true and right and incontrovertible is not much better than not believing it in the first place. Besides that, evolution is only the second part of the question; the first half is still unanswered.
For all the work on evolution, there was some original spark of life, in some primordial soup, which combined particles that were not individually capable of life, or independent operation, into something that was, and it is from this that all evolution has since descended. Abiogenesis has not progressed beyond the hypothesis stage, never mind theories.
For this reason, I find that Creationism and Evolutionism are not necessarily arguments against each other; surely evolution happens after creation.
You cannot possibly know what Darwin or any other scientist would have had to say on this matter. Can you quote Darwin?
"Abiogenesis has not progressed beyond the hypothesis stage, never mind theories. For this reason, I find that Creationism and Evolutionism are not necessarily arguments against each other; surely evolution happens after creation."
"Creation" implies the act of something being brought into existence by a conscious being "Creation" and "Creationism" have no proof at all and are usually invoked by those who have a religious agenda or who don't understand abiogenesis - these are usually features of the same group ie "I don't understand this so god must have done it".
So who or what created "god"?
Lycett
says...
8:17pm Tue 18 Sep 12
1. Of course I cannot quote Darwin on his views on classical mechanics. However, the following are true.
a) The Principia was published in 1687.
b) Darwin lived between 1809 and 1882.
c) Einstein's Theory (that word again!) of Special Relativity was published in 1905, and quantum theory was developed from then onwards.
Given those, it should not be a surprise that no quote from Darwin is likely to exist upon a subject that emerged two decades after his death, and that he would have considered classical mechanics as true for all matter.
I would have thought that, had anyone felt that other forms of physics existed, they would have published these thoughts, or have undertaken some research into them. Without that, it would not be valid as any sort of hypothesis - had Socrates, in 420BC, claimed that the Earth went around the Sun, with no supporting evidence, would we regard that as an exceptional insight or not?
I have no objection to you refusing to accept that on the grounds of lack of evidence, but demanding evidence and proof above and beyond the balance of probability can often lead to backing one's self into a logical corner.
2. You may have read between the lines on the second point, or I have not phrased it correctly. I have no 'religious agenda', neither do I deny evolution - to my mind, it is the correct explanation of how we came to be where and what we are, with ample scientific evidence, not just fossils, but even observations of the shorter-lived species, to prove it.
I did not mean to imply that, just because evolution describes the ongoing development of life rather than the original cause of it, that there is no scientific reason for life. I'd suspect that the answer will probably lie within amino acids somewhere; but you must agree that the conditions in which it occurred will have been, if not unique, then certainly extremely exceptional. Otherwise, we'd have new life forming from the bottom of the River Foss each month. It may have happened on more than one occasion, but it is not something that we either observe today, or can replicate with any certainty.
Given that fact, if you believe it to be true, then there cannot be any evidence, or proof, for how this started. No-one was there to see it, and due to that very fact, we cannot replicate it. Even if life could be generated in a laboratory, how would we know that it was the same method that formed life on Earth?
Therefore, given that you believe that I cannot make any statement on the beliefs of mid-19th Century scientists without proof, it follows that you cannot accept any hypothesis about the beginning of life, however likely or it seems to you, as you cannot prove it. This is the logical corner you have backed into.
PinzaC55
says...
10:16pm Tue 18 Sep 12
So why mention Darwin?
By the way, I suppose you know that Newton, genius though he was, believed in alchemy and thought he was a prophet?
"I have no objection to you refusing to accept that on the grounds of lack of evidence, but demanding evidence and proof above and beyond the balance of probability can often lead to backing one's self into a logical corner."
What exactly are you talking about? If things have empirical evidence, I accept them; if things have no evidence (religion, UFO's, Unicorns, pixies) I reject them.
"You may have read between the lines on the second point, or I have not phrased it correctly. I have no 'religious agenda', "
I never said you had a religious agenda. I said that people who spoke of Creation had a religious agenda.
" I'd suspect that the answer will probably lie within amino acids somewhere; but you must agree that the conditions in which it occurred will have been, if not unique, then certainly extremely exceptional. "
I disagree totally. Life has arisen on Earth; we know this for a fact because we exist. There are roughly 10 to the power 22 stars in the Universe each with a greater or lesser number of planets orbiting them as we do the Sun. Life could have arisen at any point on the surface of any of those planets in the 14 billion years the Universe has existed. I'd say that narrows the odds a bit.
"Given that fact, if you believe it to be true". What fact? I can see an assertion, not a fact
"Therefore, given that you believe that I cannot make any statement on the beliefs of mid-19th Century scientists without proof, it follows that you cannot accept any hypothesis about the beginning of life, however likely or it seems to you, as you cannot prove it. This is the logical corner you have backed into."
You cannot make a statement on the beliefs of those scientists because they are DEAD, and unless they have written anything down, we will never know. Nor would it matter. Newton was deeply religious but his views carry no weight unless backed up with evidence.
I can UNDERSTAND hypotheses about the "big bang" and abiogenesis well enough to accept them and I can see that positing an all powerful entity capable of creating a Universe from literally nothing by "speaking" it is nonsense.If you can't understand the difference, I must not explaining it clearly.
Lycett
says...
10:44pm Tue 18 Sep 12
Theories, such as that of evolution, are borne of evidence and confirmation and should be accepted as the best explanation for the phenomena they describe -- this agrees with your post about the Theory of Gravity. All I was trying to add was that, as there is no answer sheet to refer to, these theories can be expanded upon as science advances, giving Newtonian physics as an example of where this has occurred - the previous theory, whilst still valid, proved not to be the complete explanation.
On the final point, I was just trying to say that a proof is going to be impossible to reach. A number of hypotheses exist, as you know, and some are completely ludicrous, and some have valid scientific fact behind them. It was not an argument for "God created life", it was an argument against "We know how life began", neither of which are arguments that you have proffered, I hasten to add!
PinzaC55
says...
11:10pm Tue 18 Sep 12
We cannot know whether it is ever going to be "possible" or "impossible" to prove something; a million years in the future questions which the best minds cannot answer may be taught at primary school.
BTW if you go to Youtube watch the "Poetry Of Science" debate between Richard Dawkins and Neil Degrasse Tyson. It is mind boggling stuff.
sensationalism
says...
10:06am Thu 20 Sep 12
MarkyMarkMark
says...
10:50am Thu 20 Sep 12
Sorry, but the word "proven" is not correct re fish fins/flippers/legs.
It's assumed, based on lots of similarities, as a possible route to the development of legs.
Mudskippers etc are fascinating wee beasties, but if you go with evolutionary models, there is very little chance that any of the creatures currently alive on the planet are evolved from anything else that is also currently extant.
The theory of evolution supposes that variant forms (mutations/minor differences) diverge from root stock, and that the original form will usually be out-competed by the variants. When there is no evolutionary advantage to the variant, then at best they simply survive, at worst they die off.
So whilst it's possible that we share a common ancestor with most of the other life forms on the planet, its unlikely that its anything recognisable as being alive now.
Bottom line - we do not "know" based on proven fact with anything like 100% certainty. There's an element of faith involved in believing the theory of Evolution, as well as in Creationism.
PinzaC55
says...
6:53pm Thu 20 Sep 12
Try going to Youtube and watching "Ken Miller on Human Evolution" . Ken is a devout catholic and one of the foremost biologists in the world. Then get back to me.
TONY THE TORCHE says...
10:08am Fri 14 Sep 12