Maybe First Baptist Church is not so powerful...

[ronchamblin]

From Ock   ..."And Ron, I'm surprised that such a proper gentleman, no stranger to benevolent acts here and abroad, would encourage such mindless tripe."


Thanks for your balanced words Ock, and your patience with my awkward ideological relation to Garden guy.  I don't mean to encourage his wording, as in my opinion its quite offensive and unproductive if he desires to make progress in his quest to have the land occupied by the FBC utilized by something else.  Even though I enjoy some few aspects of his attitude, I encourage him to be less inflammatory, and perhaps more appreciative of what the church actually contributes to the downtown area, and to other communities and individuals throughout.  In any case, he should be patient.  Rome wasn't build in a day.  Nor was it destroyed in a day.

I think that most of us, if we were to be practical about our objectives of achieving a balanced downtown core, especially as we begin to achieve the goal of high infill and vibrancy, if we ever do, would like to see more diversity occupying the city blocks currently occupied by the FBC.  I suspect that many understand that the church could operate and perform their mission just as well if they were a little distance from the city core. 

But of course at present there seems to be little logic or pressure for them to relocate, as there seems to be nothing anxious to infill the area.  We certainly don't want empty buildings there, nor do we want parking lots.  Ultimately, when and if the core ever achieves 90 percent infill, or even before that point, it would be nice to have the area utilized more than Sundays, Wednesday nights, and occasional use as a school.  I'm not sure of the actual use of the property at present.  Perhaps it is populated more than I realize.

One point of interest is the necessity of a large parking facility for the crowds which attend services.  I wonder how many of those parking spaces are used by downtown employees during the week?  If not used much, this would be a rather inefficient use of the land taken up by the parking lots. 

In any case, anyone suggesting other alternatives about the current space utilized by the FBC would probably be looking to the future.  Certainly, if the FBC departed the area now, it would be a shock to the core, leaving an empty area which would take several years to infill with something viable.

Thinking in the "ideal", which I enjoy doing, surely many will understand that the large area utilized by the FBC would, down the road, be better utilized by a diversity of retail, residential, business, and cultural and recreational entities - TAX PAYING entities to boot.  In this way, the area would attract a broad population spread through every day of the week, thereby engaging the idea of infill and vibrancy we all desire.

Some might wonder if the current presence of the FBC in the urban core is a detriment to new infill.  I wonder if some business or residential entities, having observed the rather large presence of a mega-church, have decided to delay entry into the core, or to look elsewhere altogether. 

But what of presence?  If one were to allow the FBC a one block "control area" around its eleven block structural presence, the number of blocks "controlled" by the church would increase from 11 to perhaps 28 or so.  If we assume that the urban core consists of about 115 city blocks, one could argue that the church controls about 25% of the urban core; that is, if one allows that it controls each block adjacent to its actual structures.

I'm sure that most have the view, correct from my perspective, that the FBC has overall enhanced the downtown environment up to now.  The question in the future might be whether or not a continued presence enhances.  I suspect that given the dynamics of the need for diversity and a balanced presence in the core, and the need for a recognition of the idea of freedom from religion, an increasingly important issue with many people, the FBC presence might at some point down the road be considered awkward in the least, and perhaps viewed as obstructing the achievement of a balanced urban growth by many. 

   

 





 

[ssky]

yawn.  I don't remember addressing you Ron.  And Im not going to engage you in conversation. I havent ever found you capable of having a reasonable discussion on the matter.  So please, if you must post even more on the subject of how stupid non atheists are, don't invoke my name.  Besides, as you know, I certainly am not as smart or intelligent as you are. Indeed who could be?  After all, you did read all that Voltaire stuff back when it was first published.  After such an accomplishment, what can the rest of us do except marvel at how it supercharged that ole brain of yours so much that you never needed to read anything else.  Truly amazing. 

You are like a modern day Minerva, freshly sprung from the brain of the 18th Century! 

Its interesting that you confuse ennui and a well founded respect for the pointlessness of debating ossified neo-thoughtsters  with fear.  Im sure a therapist would find a narcissistic bit of rorschachian insight there.  As for me, I don't really care much about the ailments of aging peacocks in captivity.

More to the present however.  Considering my diminished (and already diminutive) intellectual capacities, is it really fair to dredge my well known ignorance and anti intellectualism out for inspection.  Even though the dissection room is only in the dusty imagination of a preening old bird, it deserves a little privacy.

Much thanks in advance.

"When nine hundred years old you reach, look as good, you will not, hmmm?"

--YODA, Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi

Attacking YODA Chamblain disrupts the Force. Not a good thing to do.

[ssky]

so? What about First Baptist Church? This thread really hasn't discussed it....funny how it got derailed....if it wasn't for FBC would there be more clubs downtown? Would downtown be more diverse? I'm just asking as I have not lived here long...

Shiny object syndrome. All of these threads unravel faster than you can blink. It can be quite amusing...especially if you have no expectations and just go along for the ride.

[Debbie Thompson]

Religious faith as a mental illness?  LOL.  Of course, I heard on ABC news yesterday that they are adding caffeine withdrawal to the list of mental illnesses, which has many coffee drinkers upset at being labeled with a mental illness if they stop drinking it.

So you'll excuse me if I feel that the words "mental illness" are being as overworked, overused and watered down as the word "hate" when someone disagrees with your viewpoint.  These strong words need to be saved for real mental illnesses and real hate. 

[ben says]

[M]any of the commandments are carried in today's legal code.

Really?

1) Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Negative

2) Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Negative, and quite creepy too

3) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. Negative

4) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Negative

5) Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. Negative

6) Thou shalt not kill. Sure, but can we honestly say this wouldn't be a law but for the commandment not to commit murder?

7) Thou shalt not commit adultery. Negative

8 ) Thou shalt not steal. Yes, but again, don't we know stealing is "wrong" without citing a commandment?

9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Yes

10) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. Negative

So, really, only 3 out of the ten commandments have any relation to current legality. And, let's be honest...they'd be illegal without the commandments to avoid those (obviously) wrong things.

[ssky]

Jerry, its one thing to post here under another name, but please. spare us the bizarre star wars references.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=6467;area=showposts;start=15

If theres any comparison to be made with any character in the films. there was only one athiest in the film.  Uncle Owen on Tattoine.

He kept talking about the religion being an old fools thing.  Of course he was shortly murdered.

For the record: I am not, nor have I ever been, Jerry. However, I understand why you might think so given your own fondness for using "other names". 

I do find it interesting that someone who quotes Corinthians under each of his posts exhibits such thinly veiled anger and cynicism so much of the time. But, to each his own.

"So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past." F. Scott Fitzgerald

[ssky]

Jerry, its one thing to post here under another name, but please. spare us the bizarre star wars references.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=6467;area=showposts;start=15

If theres any comparison to be made with any character in the films. there was only one athiest in the film.  Uncle Owen on Tattoine.

He kept talking about the religion being an old fools thing.  Of course he was shortly murdered.

For the record: I am not, nor have I ever been, Jerry. However, I understand why you might think so given your own fondness for using "other names". 

I do find it interesting that someone who quotes Corinthians under each of his posts exhibits such thinly veiled anger and cynicism so much of the time. But, to each his own.

"So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past." F. Scott Fitzgerald

Very little anger here, but lots of laughter.

Of course you arent Jerry.  You just happen to have his entire resume, work history and personal life memorized, and you post whenever he is criticized on the site.

Bizarre coincidence, Im sure.

I assure you it is not. Think about it for a moment. Just beyond the trees you'll find the forest that you seek.

[JayBird]

Jerry, its one thing to post here under another name, but please. spare us the bizarre star wars references.
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=6467;area=showposts;start=15

If theres any comparison to be made with any character in the films. there was only one athiest in the film.  Uncle Owen on Tattoine.

He kept talking about the religion being an old fools thing.  Of course he was shortly murdered.

For the record: I am not, nor have I ever been, Jerry. However, I understand why you might think so given your own fondness for using "other names". 

I do find it interesting that someone who quotes Corinthians under each of his posts exhibits such thinly veiled anger and cynicism so much of the time. But, to each his own.

"So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past." F. Scott Fitzgerald

Very little anger here, but lots of laughter.

Of course you arent Jerry.  You just happen to have his entire resume, work history and personal life memorized, and you post whenever he is criticized on the site.

Bizarre coincidence, Im sure.

I assure you it is not. Think about it for a moment. Just beyond the trees you'll find the forest that you seek.

And me without my popcorn

[ronchamblin]

Religious faith as a mental illness?  LOL.  Of course, I heard on ABC news yesterday that they are adding caffeine withdrawal to the list of mental illnesses, which has many coffee drinkers upset at being labeled with a mental illness if they stop drinking it.

So you'll excuse me if I feel that the words "mental illness" are being as overworked, overused and watered down as the word "hate" when someone disagrees with your viewpoint.  These strong words need to be saved for real mental illnesses and real hate. 

I agree with you Debbie, that the idea of mental illness is awkward and difficult.  While most of us can be considered normal or balanced for the most part, many students of the subject might agree that some of us have mental attributes allowing us to have “shades” of what we call mental illness; that is, one can begin to drift toward the borderline.  I think the British neuroscientist in the earlier mentioned article is suggesting that certain forms of religious fanaticism or fundamentalism can be viewed as being treatable mental illnesses.   

If it is true that one quality of the mentally ill can be the inclination to avoid reality, then her position seems to be that the religious fundamentalist is indeed within this group, as they do seem to promote belief in things which are outside of the realm of reality, things not provable or evidenced, things such as gods and extensions related to the gods, such as rituals, demands, and certain beliefs which require actions or non-actions, such as commands or reasons to hate or kill non-believers. 

An extreme case of the idea of mental illness might be evidenced by the following video I viewed recently, taken somewhere in North Africa I believe, wherein a man was beheaded with a knife of about eight inches length.  The man, lying bound on his left side, about twenty-five, an apostate, having left Islam for Christianity, seemed calm, accepting his fate, perhaps believing he would soon be in heaven.  The executioner, standing above the bound man, spoke perhaps Arabic, some Islamic words... Allah etc... for about thirty seconds.  Then, perhaps after gaining conviction and courage via speaking words of his religion, he began to cut the throat of the bound man - blood immediately bursting out.  Holding the man’s hair in his left hand, twisting the head, cutting through even the bones, the beheading took about one minute, after which the executioner allowed the severed head to sit upon the dead man’s shoulder.  The dead man’s face, which formerly had a resigned look, had his eyes partially open, and had a slightly pained, sad look. 

Could one begin to discuss the idea that this man, obviously a man who believes the teachings of Islam, or at least his understanding of the teachings, is mentally ill?  Certainly the killing of a young man, a man who perhaps desired only to change his devotion and religious belief to that of Christianity, is a gross and terrible act to most of us. If we begin with the idea that mental illness is related to the idea of having beliefs outside of reality, one might define the executioner as being mentally ill.   

The idea of mental illness, and its possible relation to a believer in one of the religions, or in one of the several gods in vogue, is given some credibility by the quoted British scientist.  Even though the neuroscientist is focusing primarily on the extreme or radical religious individual, one might argue, and I suspect that she might also, that a mild form of mental illness exists even in the majority of believers in the current systems wherein believers continue to believe in gods, prayer, heaven, and hell etc... in spite of absolutely no evidence to support these beliefs over the past few hundreds of thousands of years. Surely, one aspect of mental illness is related to the degree to which one habitually and excessively avoids reality - and related to the degree to which one believes things which are not supported by evidence, or by the known laws of nature.

So, perhaps the neuroscientist is suggesting that the revealed religion has qualities encouraging belief in something which cannot be supported by evidence; and that this quality alone allows the skeptic, the secular individual, to look upon the religious believer as engaging a slight mental illness.  Of course, even the skeptic, the secular individual, is certainly not immune, and is free to suffer his or her own form of mental illness, from the slight, to the extreme. 

The mild forms of religious-born mental illnesses goes unnoticed by most observers simply because it is stabilized in large populations, and because many assume that the masses cannot be deluded.  A drift to slightly more extreme forms of mental illness by some, depends perhaps on the combined influence of one’s tribulations, and the quality of the charismatic religious leader. 

In any case, there seems to be many kinds of low level mental illnesses, related to both the religious and the secular.  The religious kind is unique in that it is cultivated within the organized teachings of a specific religion; can exist undetected in mild form in large populations, and goes untreated because most cannot believe it possible for millions to suffer a mild form of it.

Whereas the mild form of religion-born mental illness can be only somewhat harmful to society, history has shown that the drift to extremism can cause devastation and suffering to millions. 

   

[ronchamblin]

Love the substance Stephen. 

[ronchamblin]

just such dumb stuff, ron.  How on earth can you believe any of this drivel? 

Or does it just empower you to be so offensive to people who believe in things that you apparently can't?

Using your own apparent standards, I think it would be perfectly legitimate to believe that you are yourself mentally ill, you know.

You keep repeating this nonsense about how the 'gods' were originally created by mankind.  Yet you have literally no evidence that either the methods or reasons which you cite were at play.  No evidence at all.

Yet on the basis of your unfounded belief, you offensive call large segments of the population names and make medical judgements about their mental health.

Does this sound healthy or sane to you?

It doesnt to me.

Don't mean to be offensive to anyone.  I'm expanding on the thinking of the British neuroscientist's ideas; that is, that there is reason to suggest that there are mild forms of mental illness, treatable of course, in populations and individuals who ascribe to certain kinds of religious fundamentalism.

And I certainly am aware that I might possess certain attributes of the mentally ill person.  I do the best that I can.  Working on it. 

Of course, my mental illness, if there is one, is not a consequence of a belief in one of the gods or religions currently in vogue.   

[ronchamblin]

Don't mean to be offensive to anyone.  I'm expanding on the thinking of the British neuroscientist's ideas; that is, that there is reason to suggest that there are mild forms of mental illness, treatable of course, in populations and individuals who ascribe to certain kinds of religious fundamentalism.

And I certainly am aware that I might possess certain attributes of the mentally ill person.  I do the best that I can.  Working on it. 

Of course, my mental illness, if there is one, is not a consequence of a belief in one of the gods or religions currently in vogue.   

[ronchamblin]

Thanks for understanding my problem  Need all the help I can get.

[ronchamblin]

You seem, Stephen, to suggest that the philosopher/scientists of the 18th century Enlightenment are not worthy of quoting or reading.  Of course, Newton was a little early, along with Descartes, both being for the most part of the 17th century.  These profound thinkers, persecuted in varying degrees by the church, were important catalysts in the emerging Enlightenment, which eventually destroyed the power of the church, the nobility, and the crown in France at the end of 18th century.  I could list the several important philosophers of the Enlightenment, but you can find them in any book on the subject.   


The philosophers of the 18th century were attempting to emerge from the stagnate, church encouraged, thinking of the Middle Ages, and some, those who were attempting to discuss scientific principles not in accordance with the opinions of the established church, published their material anonymously to avoid being burned at the stake by the church authorities.


Some were burned.  The pre-Enlightenment victim Giordano Bruno was burned by the church in 1600 for thinking and writing too profoundly about certain ideas of science.  Galileo escaped the fire when he agreed to support the lies taught by the church.  There were others who crossed the teachings of the church as they attempted to free mankind from superstition and other nonsense. 
       

Do you see any similarities between France of the mid-eighteenth century, and the current situation in the U. S.... or to the current situation in our urban core?  Observe briefly the components.  France had a powerful clergy/church, in partnership with the government and the nobility.  There was great wealth among a one-percent elite, made up of the clergy, the nobility, and the king, while the majority population suffered deprivations.  Sound familiar?  And we’ve all marveled at the right wing GOP nuts in our government and their relation to the Christian nuts.  Pretty close confederation I’d say - similar to that of 18th century France.


Recall the shameful quality of the front running Republicans in the last election?  None of those GOP religious nuts had one-third the sense of the group of philosophers I admire in 18th century Europe.  The average GOP politician's belief that they will not be elected unless he or she attends church is shameful, and only illustrates the dumbing down of America.
 

Are there similar dynamics in our local government?  Is our local governmental/religion tie too strong?  Is the pressure of comfort and complacency, as accepted by most in our local GOB government, and as encouraged by the local religious presence, one cause of our failure to make real progress in our urban core?
 

So ..... yes I do admire and read the writings of the 18th century philosophers, as they endured and conquered the absurd beliefs of the time, with mental abilities rare in our time.


Also, I might mention that, while I am quite comfortable in understanding classical physics, including the idea of the quantum, I am not enthused about the multi-universes and such, as most of the trained scientists don’t understand the concepts, and certainly don’t agree on them.  I prefer to wait until there is less nonsense, when there is a consensus on these rather exotic ideas about other worlds and universes.


While some might pretend that they understand “modern theoretical physics” and the multi-universe and otherworld concepts, I suggest that there is no body of information about which anyone agrees, and that therefore there is little for the layman to actually understand in the first place.  Most only wish there was actually something to understand, and then they could discuss the understanding of it.  For the time being, I suggest we engage the multi-universe stuff as we would a science fiction novel.

       


     

[ronchamblin]

And you seem to think that the philosophers of the past 4,000 years whose truths are inscribed in religious texts are not worth reading. Many of them were also burned for their convictions, and in one notable case, crucified in a fairly cruel form of secular execution.  This doesnt seem to have lent any credibility to your considerations of their ideas or passions, so I find it curious that you appeal to martyrdom to make the case for the italians on the run from the ecclesiastical courts.

The problem for me is that my skepticism allows me to state that there are very few truths inscribed in the religious texts, and therefore I find myself being very selective as to what I consider worthy of use as I contemplate the past, and as I attempt to live a good and productive life.  From my perspective, the truth of the execution you mention is in question, there being nothing written concerning the possible event until many decades past the supposed event.  I wonder why there were no extant writings at the time.  Therefore, it is highly probable that the execution is only myth, generated by enthusiasts to enhance the story they wished to tell.

It is interesting that most all of the executions and burnings were related to intolerance regarding one's beliefs in the realm of religion.  My hero's of the 17th/18th century France were concerned of course with establishing greater understandings about the sciences, a that's why some were banished by church authorities, some wrote anonymously to hide their identities, and some were imprisoned or executed.  Yes, Bruno was an Italian, but most of the active philosophers I speak of were French. 

I rather like the Enlightenment era, but I do not ascribe to it the planet saving powers with which you seem to endow it.

I urge you to consider upgrading your opinion of these brave fellows in the Enlightenment who, in spite of the threat of banishment, prison, and death, finally brought an end to church controlled society, allowing the free flow of the ideas of the sciences, and ultimately the establishment of modern technology.

In your second paragraph's first sentence, you exactly state why their viewpoint on the Catholic Church is not terribly relevant to the present.  And lets be honest, the vitriol of the age was directed towards Rome, not Canterbury or Constantinople, nor Mecca and certainly not towards the Bhodi Tree.

The conflict has very similar aspects currently, in that there are religious entities which obstruct the teaching of good science, and which overall squander the time and assets of a society which could better use them elsewhere.

I am not sure what you are talking about when you describe this magical cure that the Philosophes effected regarding some imagined conquest of the absurd beliefs of their times.  If your fourth and fifth paragraphs are to be believed, then obviously they did not.

I literally see no parallel between the 18th Century and the present other than the terribly pedestrian similarities that can be ascribed to all political ages.

I see a good number of similarities, some of which appear in my paragraphs.  I am concerned about anyone who cannot see the similarities.

Finally, Im not sure what you are getting at with the multiverse  reference.  I do find it queer that you on one hand ask us to accept that modern science and reason are superior to religion but then describe them as unreliable, not to be trusted and advise that they should be treated like fiction.

You misunderstood my intention.  I am saying that there is the classical or Newtonian physics, which is the basis of 99.9 percent of our sciences and technology.  And then there is the current effort to extend our understanding to the exotic, to the realm requiring the greatest stretches of the imagination, such as with the ideas of multi-universes and black holes.  I am trying to convey that I choose to avoid engaging that realm until there is greater understanding and agreement about it in the scientific community.  It is admittedly fun stuff to contemplate for some.  However, if one desires to  engage it too much, then one's thoughts merge with the stuff of science fiction.  I usually avoid fiction.

I suppose I should point out that its pointless to address your arguments as you have literally demolished them on your own insomuch as at least two of your points are concerned, but I should think it unnecessary.

I think I am pretty clear, and non-destructive to my own arguments.  Thank you for your interesting comments.