Maybe First Baptist Church is not so powerful...

[ronchamblin]

The following is selected quotes from Huff Post article from today:

"Chilean police on Thursday arrested four people accused of burning a baby alive in a ritual because the leader of the sect believed that the end of the world was near and that the child was the antichrist. .... The 3-day-old baby was taken to a hill in the town of Colliguay near the Chilean port of Valparaiso on Nov. 21 and was thrown into a bonfire. The baby's mother, 25-year-old Natalia Guerra, had allegedly approved the sacrifice and was among those arrested.

"The baby was naked. They strapped tape around her mouth to keep her from screaming. Then they placed her on a board. After calling on the spirits they threw her on the bonfire alive," said Miguel Ampuero, of the Police investigative Unit, Chile's equivalent of the FBI.  .... 

"Everyone in this sect was a professional," Ampuero said. "We have someone who was a veterinarian and who worked as a flight attendant, we have a filmmaker, a draftsman. Everyone has a university degree. "



Religion anyone?

Oh my goodness Ron!  This is your come back discussion on a thread you said was becoming juvenile?  Have mercy!

Imagine the surprise of readers who want to find out about whether or not First Baptist Church is "so" powerful only to be led down a path of discussion about religious beliefs in general to now find a bizarre article discussing the barbaric actions of a cult in Chile who in their insanity killed a child.  That is murder plain and simple and the sad truth is that people all across the world abuse and kill children every day and it has nothing to do with religion.  I think this thread has found it's end or it should have found it's end with this enlightening article intended to draw a parallel between those who murder children and religion.  This is perhaps the final insult I think one could level at people who embrace religion by pretending this kind of insanity is indicative of those of good heart who believe in a higher power. This is a bit too much I think Ron, really a bit too much.

Thank you Diane.  It is refreshing for someone to be so readable and direct.  We should encourage your kind of writing on this forum.

The Huff Post article quotes were interesting to me in that they illustrate some aspects of religious belief which might be of interest to our forum readers.  Although the particular Chilean beliefs were obviously different from most of our local religious beliefs, I noticed similarities, as the phrases used such as “end of the world” and “antichrist”, would indicate a relationship to Christianity.   

My purpose in offering the information as it appeared in the Huff Post is to illustrate the degree to which individuals of a cult or church can travel toward behaviors quite bizarre, especially if the individuals are led by a leader or preacher who is able to take his mind to extreme religious delusional thinking.  These people were not individually insane in the normal sense, but were brought to  a level of almost insane behavior as a consequence of intense delusional thinking based on ideas such as gods, sin, and human sacrifice.

This kind of news, although horrible, should be welcomed occasionally to remind all of us of the degree to which religious thinking, if unchallenged and unrestrained, can evolve toward quite bizarre scenarios, as is evidenced throughout history. 

After all, if it is in the nature of a religion to believe in a god, to believe in sin, to believe in forgiveness by a god, to believe in a heaven, to believe in a hell, to believe that prayer is talking to a god who will respond somehow to the individual, and in some cases to have the potential for further delusional extremes such as human sacrifices as illustrated in the Chilean article, then it seems appropriate for some of us to offer reminders that we have in our city the same or similar religious thought dynamics, reminders which might in subtle ways cause moderation in our religious environment, which is good for the community I should think.

Yes, this was murder, but it was murder influenced by a thought process which found its beginning in religious beliefs, and as history has shown, there are no limits to which religious delusional thinking can extend if given enough time, the right leadership, and a population with the right kind of needs, deficiencies, and inclinations.       


BTW, I did not mean to indicate earlier that I was ending my entire participation in this forum, but only meant that I was ending my participation in the subject for a time, taking a rest from certain hogwash which perturbed me. 

[ronchamblin]

"Out of this process of imagining, each of us has options to either believe all of the possibilities, or most of them, or only a few of them.  I suspect that the aborigines and the "cave men" believed quite a few of these possibilities, one being perhaps the existence of telepathy, and another being the existence of gods and spirits.

As time progressed, especially around the Enlightenment Era, we (humans) began to accumulate knowledge of the sciences, knowledge which allowed many learned men and women to reign in many of the former possibilities, and therefore to have fewer beliefs in the realms of the otherworldly and the spiritual."

Of all your quotes so far, this is probably my favorite, inasmuch as it relies on more superstition, outright ignorance of both history and even anthropology and fabricated pseudo history than a run of the mill "religious person".  At least the religious individual, in general only has to believe in one unprovable thing, the existence of a diety. (which apparently makes them nearly mentally ill)

Are you suggesting that my statement relies mostly on superstition, and outright ignorance...?  Interesting Mr. Dare.  Quite a profound statement.  And yes, i am suggesting that the religious individual, although admittedly in varying and very slight degrees, possesses some attributes of the mentally ill. 

But in order to believe the nonsense which you posted, one has to believe that your suspicions about the beliefs of either 'cave men' (One assumes you mean Neanderthals?  Or perhaps the residents of the French Caves of Lescaux) or Aborigines--(-and by this I think you mean primitive man, rather than Aborigines, the native inhabitants of Australia.) have any real place in a discussion about science, religion or history.


Call them whatever.  Neanderthals did of course live in caves.  The intended and fundamental meaning is important Mr. Dare.  Call them aborigines or cave men or primitive man if you like.  I really like the term primitive man, as you’ve offered.

Mr. Dare, you seem to have the habit of avoiding the issues of real interest by wasting everyone’s time on insignificant points .  Apparently you wish to submit these insignificant points to show somehow that you are a very intelligent person.  You are like a red feathered banty rooster, hopping around frantically trying to show people how much you know, either by copying large segments of original works, or by throwing out so much hogwash of trivial insignificance, readers will suspect that surely there must be something of substance within.

You are smart Mr. Dare, but not to the depth or breadth you would wish others to believe.  You do have your specialties, such as the local histories which I’ve enjoyed and appreciated so much, but I suggest caution when you extend to other areas, as it is possible that you might appear the fool.  You are someone who will consider it a “win” if you point out a misspelled word on a scientist’s nobel prize winning paper.  Substance Mr. Dare, substance. 

Have you noticed that you very seldom post original and somewhat profound thoughts on the issues you’ve engaged?  In your quest to push sensitive and sensible people away from this forum, you have indeed managed to post voluminous criticism, mostly unfair, insulting, and unsupported, which gains perhaps small appearances of credibility only because your posts are so voluminous and full of hogwash, bouncing around to this or that, so that nobody really wants to wade through it to respond.  You attempt credibility by shear volume of hogwash.  In order to gain genuine praise Mr. Dare, in order to genuinely influence others to assume you are a superior debater, please slow down and attempt to be original.  Think about the essence of what is being discussed.  Attack the essence of one’s argument, and avoid complicating the issues, and attacking others by suggesting they are simply “ignorant” or are full of “nonsense”. 

And let me linger on this for a moment.  Is it possible that perhaps you mean to use the term "aboriginal' in the Victorian sense of the term: Indigenous People?

Again, as I tend to be attentive to reasonable significance and hopeful quality, I do not consider it important to be concerned about the terms aboriginal or indigenous or primitive.  The very fact that you are concerned about these terms is proof that you are lost in shallow attacks, that you do not possess the depth of concentration or knowledge to focus on the essence of the arguments.  You attempt to obscure your lack of understanding of certain fundamental issues by nitpicking on  insignificant terms.  What is significant Mr. Dare?  Do you want to continue with arguing about these terms?  To do so is juvenile.  However, if you wish, I will gladly engage you on this rather wasteful exercise.  But really... is it necessary?  

In the first case, its just bizarre that you would offer as part of your argument your personal opinions about the supposed beliefs of other species of humans who died over 50 thousand years ago-----a huge leap of faith, Im sure you would agree.

In the second case--if you are using the terms to describe actual people, its pretty condescending of you to pass judgement on what you apparently fondly believe to be the beliefs of indigenous peoples.

Bizarre?... to offer opinions? .... my beliefs?  Horrors!!  I rather enjoy my inclination to offer opinions and beliefs about conditions of primitive peoples.  The exercise of suggesting probable mental attributes of primitives has been ongoing for hundreds of years, and I suspect that if you took the time to research, you would find that although my opinions are my own, they will probably agree with certain published students of the subject. 

The passage of time, 50,000 years, does not decrease one’s ability to discuss certain probabilities as to the beliefs of primitives, but the fact that the human mind at that time is perhaps 99.99 percent the same as the mind of the modern human “is” important.  We must assume that primitive man had similar fundamental needs as we moderns.  And therefore, we must assume that primitives would attempt to satisfy those needs in ways about which we are familiar.  This kind of thinking Mr. Dare, apparently is beyond your habit.   

Aboriginals indeed.

Before we go any further, can you cite some sources about the well known practices of telepathy amongst the Aborigines or the 'Cave Men"?

Please do Ron, inquiring minds would like to know.

I know I would like to know the source of your insights on the religious practices of 'cave men' and 'aborigines'.

Telepathy?  My position is that there is no such thing, as it would require acts involving miracles, which is to say, acts outside of the laws of nature, which would involve the ideas of gods and prayer and such.  Just as there is belief with many moderns in the existence of telepathy, and some even attempt to prove it exists, I must assume that there was also a belief amongst primitives in the idea of telepathy.  Certainly there were beliefs in ghosts and spirits and gods in the primitive minds, just as there are beliefs now. 

Regarding your wish for me to site some sources about practices of telepathy among the primitives, I must remind you that in any field of science or history or anthropology, we can, and we must, make certain assumptions until they are proven to be incorrect.  So ....  the sources are there, written by certain students before me.  I like to say that I have arrived at my opinions from a widely varied reading, but also from a long time of living, observing, and contemplation.  Therefore, I do not at this point feel obligated to site specific sources.  They are out there for you to research.  I don’t have the time to do your homework.

In summation Mr. Dare, perhaps, in your quest to inform others that you are very smart, which you are indeed in a select few realms, you should slow down a bit, and contemplate some fundamentals in the sciences, and also perhaps some fundamentals in human behavior; that is, the psychology of humans, so that you can gather habits of thinking and debate more consistent with the realm of truth, with respect for others, and with the needs of this forum. 

To continue as the red feathered banty rooster, raising the dust of the superficial insignificant, insulting and demeaning others, twisting issues with needling hogwash -- well Mr. Dare, it will only prove that you are bent on disparaging your own reputation, and that of this forum.  

[ronchamblin]

Thanks Mr. Dare.  Anything of substance?  Not really.  I will review Ock's material.  Please warn him of an upcoming blast of profound logic and intellect, on a level of which he might not be accustomed.    I wonder if he ever found any trolley/train/streetcar books in my shop. 

But no, I do not dislike the Christians, as they are necessary at present for balance and comfort in the minds of many.  I simply wish to offer alternatives to local thinking so that their presence remains somewhat harmless for the local scene.  Onward Christian soldiers. 

Regarding the idea of the mentally ill.... well, as you might suspect there is a broad spectrum or curve on which we all could be placed to indicate our level of mental health.  Where are you or I on the curve?  Where are the Christians?   Where are the secularists... the skeptics?  .... that is, if one could place upon the curve an average of each segment of the population? 

In the end, we all do the best we can for the moment in time that we indulge in communicating with others.  This forum is an exercise in communicating, an exercise in forming ideas which interest us, an exercise in accurately conveying our ideas to others.  The feedback we invite allows us to weigh and question our convictions so that we might form thoughts approaching the ideals of truth and honesty.  We should guard against contaminating the discussions with attempts to harm others, or with attempts to improve our standings or self-images excessively at the expense of truth and honesty.  Balance Mr. Dare.  Calm.  And substance too. 

[If_I_Loved_you]

More good advice which doesnt originate from yourself, Ron.  Let me commend you to the rest of that

From the Bible, Luke 4:23 (King James Version):

Physician, heal thyself:

Its interesting that you think of your posts in this way.  Just not terribly accurate.  But we've come to expect that by now.

Im sure it all makes sense to someone who would like to conflate Christianity with child murder as you did in yesterdays postings and still be considered a serious thinker....  But I would posit that many people would be surprised to know that their cross necklaces could be a sign that they might be in danger of murdering a three year old as a consequence of their simple faith,

sounds like a calm, substantive approach, one supposes.

As for having to 'prepare' ock for anything, he has this habit that I highly recommend to you:  He actually reads things for himself.

+ 1000

[ronchamblin]

From Huffington Post (05/31/13)

Kathleen Taylor, Neuroscientist, Says Religious Fundamentalism Could Be Treated As A Mental Illness.

An Oxford University researcher and author specializing in neuroscience has suggested that one day religious fundamentalism may be treated as a curable mental illness.

Kathleen Taylor, who describes herself as a "science writer affiliated to the Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics," made the suggestion during a presentation on brain research at the Hay Literary Festival in Wales on Wednesday.
In response to a question about the future of neuroscience, Taylor said that "One of the surprises may be to see people with certain beliefs as people who can be treated," The Times of London notes.

“Someone who has for example become radicalised to a cult ideology -- we might stop seeing that as a personal choice that they have chosen as a result of pure free will and may start treating it as some kind of mental disturbance," Taylor said. “In many ways it could be a very positive thing because there are no doubt beliefs in our society that do a heck of a lot of damage."

The author went on to say she wasn't just referring to the "obvious candidates like radical Islam," but also meant such beliefs as the idea that beating children is acceptable.

Taylor was not immediately available for comment.

This is not the first time Taylor has explored the mind processes of a radical. In 2006, she wrote a book about mind control called Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control, which explored the science behind the persuasive tactics of such groups as cults and al Qaeda.

"We all change our beliefs of course," Taylor said in a YouTube video about the book. "We all persuade each other to do things; we all watch advertising; we all get educated and experience [religions.] Brainwashing, if you like, is the extreme end of that; it's the coercive, forceful, psychological torture type."

Taylor also noted that brainwashing, though extreme, is part of a the "much more widespread phenomenon" of persuasion. That is, "how we make people think things that might not be good for them, that they might not otherwise have chosen to think."


Relating Religious Fundamentalism to a kind of mental illness is an interesting view, one to which I subscribe.  Of course, we could all be placed on a curve showing our mental health or illness, some of us being on the “good or perfect” end, some on the “bad or ill” end, but most being in the middle... the typical bell curve.   
 
But what of the religious types who are not considered “fundamentalists”?  I suspect that they have only mild forms of mental illness, and would therefore be placed slightly toward the middle of the curve.

As one becomes less religious, one becomes less delusional, having a more realistic view of life and the universe in general, and therefore one would more likely be placed closer to the “perfect” end of the mental wellness/illness curve.

Myself, and most other atheists, will of course appear near the “perfect or good” end of the curve.    
 
   

[ronchamblin]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/atheist-monument-starke-florida_n_3368319.html#slide=2518512

Public Atheist Monument Going Up Near Courthouse In Starke, Florida, Is Country's First.

A small city in heavily Christian northern Florida is about to become home to the first public monument in the United States dedicated to atheism.

Florida members of American Atheists, a national advocacy group, plan to erect a 1,500-pound granite display in front of the Bradford County Courthouse in Starke, Fla., next month, opposite a controversial year-old display of the Ten Commandments outside the same courthouse.

"We'd rather there be no monuments at all, but if they are allowed to have the Ten Commandments, we will have our own," said Ken Loukinen, the director of regional operations for American Atheists who designed the monument.

The new structure will feature quotes related to secularism from Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and American Atheists founder Madalyn Murray O'Hair on a 4-foot-high panel, alongside a bench. It will stand in a small square in front of the courthouse, opposite the 5-foot, 6-ton Ten Commandments monument sponsored by a Christian group.

The dueling monuments in Starke are part a growing number of conflicts about public displays of religion. In February, a district judge dismissed an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit and ruled that another Ten Commandments display in front of a courthouse in northwestern Florida's Dixie County could stay put. Controversies have also erupted this year over Ten Commandments displays in public schools in Oklahoma and Pennsylvania.

American Atheists sued Bradford County last July, saying the Christian monument in front of the county courthouse was a public endorsement of religion. In response, the county asked Community Men's Fellowship, the organization that sponsored the display, to take it down. But the fellowship replied by saying it had "prayerfully considered" the request and would not comply. The county and American Atheists went to a court-ordered mediation in March and settled upon the atheists getting their own monument.

Will Sexton, an attorney who represented the county in the settlement, said it never intended to sponsor any religion with the Ten Commandments monument, nor is it endorsing secularism with the new atheist display.

"In October 2011, the county adopted a set of monument placement guidelines that created what we saw as a free speech forum in the courtyard," he said. Sexton explained that private groups can apply to place a monument in the space, and that signs on display indicate that any such works do not represent the position of the county.

The county's free speech forum guidelines say monuments must commemorate "people, events and ideas which played a significant role in the development, origins or foundations of United States of America or Florida law, or Bradford County," cannot be permanent and cannot be "libelous, pornographic or obscene." Sexton said the atheists' planned monument met the requirements.

"What the atheists agreed to is something they could have originally been approved for without a year of money and litigation," he added.
A representative of Community Men's Fellowship did not respond to phone calls from The Huffington Post, but the organization posted a statement on its Facebook page after the settlement was reached saying that "God worked this out."

"On the very first day we were informed of the lawsuit, [member] Dan spoke up and said he believed the Lord had given him a word on how to deal fight this thing. He was right. Praise God," the statement read. "We want you all to remember that this issue was won on the basis of this being a free speech issue, so don't be alarmed when the American Atheists want to erect their own sign or monument. It's their right. As for us, we will continue to honor the Lord and that's what matters."

The Stiefel Freethought Foundation, a group led by millionaire atheist Todd Stiefel, funded the new atheist monument to the tune of $6,000. It will include a quote from the Treaty of Tripoli, a 1796 peace agreement between the U.S. and North African Muslims, which has become a rallying point for atheists because of its declaration that "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.

The display will also feature Biblical quotes that supporters say correspond to the Ten Commandments, such as Deuteronomy 13:10, which says to "stone him with stones" so "that he die" in reference to people who worship other gods. (The first commandment reads, "You shall have no other gods before me.")

Loukinen, the organization's regional operations director, said American Atheists resorted to putting up its own monument only after trying to get the Christian one removed, and the group has no plans to erect any more monuments in other cities or states.

There is at least one other atheist monument in the U.S., on private land in Lake Hypatia, Ala. It's dedicated to "atheists in foxholes" and was constructed in 1999 by the Freedom From Religion Foundation."   


Hopefully interesting to some readers.  I am ignorant of the level of actual entanglement between the formal religious presence in our urban core and the individuals affecting policy and decisions within our city government -  only assuming that there is some  -- and not suggesting that any or all entanglements would necessarily be bad.

The slide show on the site, following the article shows some of the quotes to be placed upon the monument.

[spuwho]

I wonder what people would do if I wanted to put a monument up to honor Hammurabi's Code? or perhaps the Magna Carta? both considered foundations of today's rule of law along with that Judaic legal instrument called the Ten Commandments?

True, there is no US law that says "you must worship no other god but me", but many of the commandments are carried in today's legal code.

[Garden guy]

I put my hopes that one day before i die i can see our city without fbc...its ridiculous that this business which is worth a shitload of cash pays nothing in taxes for the burden they put on our city center...too much power and id love to see them move away from an area that very very few of their members actually live. The racism that thrives there is astounding and none of you guys have the balls to call them on it..but thos is jax...itll stay that way for another 100 years..

[Duvaltopia]

And now the Baptists are feverishly turning away Boy Scout troops because the Scouts won't kick out gay kids. Really, Baptists are simply the modern era's Klu Klux Klan.

[ronchamblin]

Thanks Spuwho, for the reminder of the Hammurabi Code.  And Garden guy.. I love you..  and your honesty, but you can be so blunt and coarse sometimes….some of which I enjoy.  And I agree Stephen, there are all shades and levels of Baptists.  We are fortunate to have within our midst what seems to be a reasonable group. 

In spite of all the argument about religion, spirituality is real.  The spirit within us exists, for some to feel more than others, and for some to endure and enjoy more at certain times in their lives.  Religious thinking and religions emerge and grow out of this fundamental spiritual need and essence within most humans.  Therefore, one should not, with good conscience offend those who apparently need their religion and who wish to publicly display their religious beliefs.  One can only perhaps offer to the religious community occasional opinions as to the extent to which religious thinking can go in the direction of the unreasonable, the abusive, and the absurd.   
   
Profound rules of living, truisms which cultivate a society promoting an environment within which all can achieve a reasonably good quality of life in spite of the selfish and evil individuals who seem to emerge within it -  individuals who always seem to cause suffering and pain - evolve from the basic human condition, that rational ability within the human mind which through evolution, removed us further from our primate cousins.  The interface between humans and society forced the creation of necessary rules and guidelines predating the ideas of the Hammurabi Code, monotheism, of Moses and Abraham, the Ten Commandments, Paul and Jesus, the Magna Carta. 

Therefore, to assume that the teachings of any cult, or modern revealed religion such as Christianity, all of which emerged man-made from these fundamental pressures and needs within the human psyche, should be forced upon the freethinking individuals in our society, whether in governmental meetings or in parks such as the one in Stark, is presuming too much authority on the part of the religious enthusiast, is encroaching on the freedom of others.  The guidelines for personal behavior and societal rules emerge from basic human needs, from the necessity of humans to maintain a reasonably good quality of life, from the need to survive as individuals and as a species, and does not have to depend upon the fabrication by man of an imagined revealed religion, which, by its nature is divisive, destructive, arbitrary, confusing, diminishing to the intellect, and open to abuse by those who desire control over others.   

The front page Times Union article in today’s paper, by Jim Schoettler, concerning the issue of praying in council meetings, is another point of confrontation between those who wish to force their religious practices upon the public at large, and those who wish to avoid entanglements with what they perceive to be artificial, man-made, and therefore imperfect religious teachings, rituals, and guidelines for living. 

In the article, an offense to the public comes from a Mr. Anderson, a Baker County commissioner, who stated that “any objectors to Christian-based invocations can leave, and return when it’s over.”  I would suggest to him that “he can leave the room, do his prayer, and return when his prayer is over.”  Actually, in the interim, before all this religious nonsense is reigned in, I prefer the solution offered in Jim’s article by Parvez Ahmed, the Muslim who sits on the Jax Human Rights Commission.  He stated, “Messages that tout one religion over another can be seen as offensive and a violation of the separation of church and state.  A simple fix …. A Moment of Silence.”  By this procedure, anyone, even the free-thinker, could simply use the silent time to think about what evil he or she could do after the meeting.

The ancient human needs to survive psychologically and physically, as individuals and as communities, has, by way of rational thinking over hundreds of thousands of years, caused the formation of rules and guidelines, of good habits, of societal expectations, of punishments, of proper and productive thinking.  The fact that various religious vehicles, such as Christianity and Islam, emerged relatively recently to incorporate many of those rules and guidelines into their teachings does not diminish the ability of, and the necessity of, modern man to consider, in light of the absurd direction most religions have evolved, to forgo the religions which hijacked many of those fundamental and necessary guidelines.   
   
   

[ronchamblin]

meh.  ive usually found that anyone who guarantees you certainty, whether in the name of Kali, Ashtoreth, Jupiter or Richard Dawkins is usually just full of self delusion and bunkum. No matter how many paragraphs of hatefully bigoted speech it takes them to say "I hate ------(fill in the blank:  In this case: religious people)", it all boils down to the same thing.  Just another foolish person staking out a rocky outcrop on bullshit mountain for a cherished moment of superiority over his vastly inferior fellow chimps.

Nice to see the monument however, and its amusing that the first atheist monument was erected in a prison town.

Perhaps its no coincidence that the place where people murder their fellow men by lethal injection in the name of The State would prefer not to believe in an afterlife.

Are you relating the idea of Jupiter to Richard Dawkins?  Interesting.  Your failure in logic and perception is showing.  I had hoped you would be…. well….. showing more perception and intelligence than this Stephen. 

Hatefully bigoted speech?  A discussion of the fundamental dynamics involved as humans attempt to engage life successfully is certainly not hatefully bigoted speech.  Your comment only shows your inability to think with any depth about the psychology of man.  You seem, as always, deficient in the realm of subtle and fundamental psychological dynamics, and this deficiency forces you, in a desperate attempt to hide it, to attack those who are skilled at it.  This is why your involvement in most discussions, especially with those who offer a reasonable degree of conviction and opinion, descends to the juvenile as a consequence of your wish for this level, as it hides your inability to engage intelligent, and therefore productive, argument. 

And to suggest a valid correlation between the Stark monument to atheism, and the prison?  Are you okay? 

Now of course, you will post material taking this thread to greater depths of juvenility, to further slinging of abusive language, so that you can further obscure your deficiencies in communication.  Have you ever read old threads to determine how many times you’ve guided a discussion down to simple childish abusive language? 

[ronchamblin]

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.

Much thanks in advance.

Thanks for the honesty Stephen.  I shall not continue engagement with you on this.  But the fact that you wish not to engage me in conversation suggests that you fear me somehow, perhaps my debate ability, or perhaps your assumption of a certain intellect, as if it were to be of significance. 

But of course, we all have our abilities and our deficiencies. We all have languages we know, and fields of knowledge about which we can discuss with reasonable skill.  I admit quite readily that I am ignorant about many things, and that I do not understand many languages; i.e. Urban Transportation Engineering, Spanish etc.  There is nothing wrong with being ignorant about a certain language or field of knowledge.

Some of us however, fearing being discovered as being ignorant of a certain language or field of knowledge, panic, become defensive, and attempt to obscure our ignorance by destroying the discussion, by taking it to the level of the abusive, childish language.

For my part, being ignorant in most fields and subjects engaged, I remain silent on most discussions.  I am not ashamed of my ignorance, as there is only so much time, and one is only a product of one's past.

[ronchamblin]

Love you Stephen.

[sdmjax]

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...

[Ocklawaha]

I put my hopes that one day before i die i can see our city without fbc...its ridiculous that this business which is worth a shitload of cash pays nothing in taxes for the burden they put on our city center...

Please list a complete accounting with dollar values demonstrating the losses to the city attributable to FBC. Inquiring minds want to know, but suspect you are unable to back up your bile with facts.

...too much power and id love to see them move away from an area that very very few of their members actually live.

Your comical prose is entertaining, why wouldn't one of the largest... lets see, um, large churches, hospitals, transportation facilities etc. in the City/County, not want to be in the center of said mass?  If they have many employees/members a central location is critical to their mission. Are we to supposed to believe you want these companies to move away from an area that very, very, few of their employees actually live? Your logic, isn't.

The racism that thrives there is astounding and none of you guys have the balls to call them on it..but thos is jax...itll stay that way for another 100 years..

This one is a howler, R A C I S M ? In a church with a mixed race congregation, dynamic Spanish and Oriental ministries, and one that feeds, clothes and houses thousands of homeless every year.  It is a church big enough to send dozens of mission teams around the world to primitive tribal people or polished cosmopolitan meccas, to feed, clothe, educate and provide critical shelter and medical care to needy people. Yeah, Garden Guy, racism is just another label for unfounded hatred and you hardly appear to be the one to recklessly throw that around.

Wow.

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